The nurse was doing her job. Kennedy was being a half-cocked jerk. Kennedys doctor "buddy" was doing what all "Kennedy buddies" do...back the Kennedys if you want to be in with the Kennedys.

Look back in Kennedy history and you'll find plenty of useful idiots the Kennedys have used for their own benefit. When no longer of use to them, they throw you away.

"There is no question about it during the entire incident, Mr. Kennedy was acting very politely, calmly, politely."

In Oklahoma, we don't consider kicking a nurse in the pelvis to be polite.

One who attempts to falsely imprison you and endanger a baby by snatching it from a father who is simply taking him for a walk deserves more than a kick in the pelvis they deserve jail time.

Aussie Rob, they have rules, very strick rules, about newborn babies leaving hospitals with anyone..including the parents, even if they are a KENNEDY. These rules are there to protect the child. These nures were doing thier job correctly, and I am sure there is more to Mr. Kennedys story than the baby needed a walk in the air (like I want to throw my weight around because I have money). But don't worry, I am sure the Kennedy name is on the hospitals list somewhere for money and he will get away with being a COMPLETE AND TOTAL @!$%#, the hospital will probably fire the nurses ,and some other child will probably be abducted from this hospital because the nurses will be afraid to do the right thing (thier jobs) because some rich @!$%# got the last ones fired.

There are also laws that prevent fascist professionals from falsely imprisoning someone unless they reasonably believe a crime has been or is being commited, and only then to allow time for police to arrive. I'd love to see them argue they did not know the individual and thought he was kidnapping this infant because in none of these reports do they suggest there was any doubt as to anyone identity. There is no law that allows them to detain this man because there was no doubt as to his identity, and no hospital policy trumps the law regardless of whether you think its a good idea or not.

I guess the hospital owns your baby. Another reason why women should have kids in their homes with private doctors instead of the loons in these giant corporations who can give two @!$%#s about the people that go there. He should sue em for child endangerment. I've always said I'll never trust these strangers to take my kid and put them behind closed doors where i cant see what the hell is going on. What he should have done is have some family female friends present and just had them kick the @!$%# out of the nurses so he wouldnt have had to get his hands dirty. Screw these money hungry doctors and nurses who lost focus of why they really got into the business anyways.(to save lives and help people) Not to put newborns at risk from a father who has every right to do what the hell he wants with his kid even if he wanted to leave and never come back.

he will get away with being a COMPLETE AND TOTAL @!$%#, the hospital will probably fire the nurses ,and some other child will probably be abducted from this hospital because the nurses will be afraid to do the right thing (thier jobs) because some rich @!$%# got the last ones fired

I so hope that you're wrong about everything but this event has put these RNs in a very precarious position. The RN's obligation is to protect their patients. When anyone disregards instructions given to them, no matter who it is, the door has been opened for a possible critical event. For anyone disagreeing and saying to themselves "But this was the father", stick around and see the articles printed right here on MSNBC on a daily basis. And they don't publish every tragedy where a child has been abused, endangered or murdered by their own parent(s).

A two day old baby does have full control over its body, has not developed an ability to self regulate its temperature, has limited resistance to pathogens - no ability to regulate any other bodily functions, even breathing is not quite stable yet. It has depended on the mother to do that for him.

At best, the father was stupid to not listen to or reason with medical staff.Even based on the meager information in this article - had the nurses allowed this bully to leave with the child against medical advice ... they would be derelict in their duties.

What I can't understand is why or how the doctor interceded in the matter. His encouragement did nothing other than inflame the situation.

He needs to lose hospital privileges for countermanding the orders of the floor nurses.

For whatever ritual this Kennedy wanted to perform, added by the physician - it was way out of order, clearly neither he nor his family friend were thinking this through.The chain of custody of the child needed to be legally clear, the doctor of all people should have been well aware of the procedural necessities when it comes to newborns, legal responsibility and medical precautions. he was not in charge of that ward... the nurses were. his duties were listed as the ER support Dr. on duty - why was he even involved?

If a nurse tried to take my baby away from me I would do more than kick her in the pelvis............you can bet these nurses knew who Mr. Kennedy was and that the child was his............a man who has four children knows how to hold and care for a newborn and since the infant was 2 days old the nurses certainly knew he was the father....

keep me from my child or try to take away my child and you will face my wrath...........Mr. Kennedy had every right to take his child and to protect it from those who would see it taken from its father....

having a baby at a hospital does not give the hospital or its employees claim to the baby....the parents are the legal guardians and the nurses the hired staff....they are paid by the parents.

I would sue the nurses for endangering the life and well being of my child.......we are afforded the right to protect our family at any cost...if an aggressive nurse came at me and demanded I hand over my child all hell would break loose....the infant is not the property of the hospital nor is the hospital legal guardian of the child..

heck, all the mother has to do is ask the child be brought to her room and it is done and the baby can stay in with the mother the entire time they are at the hospital........since when do fathers have less rights than mothers?....

I would like to see the policy on the parents rights to their own child....this situation does not create an atmosphere of good will and safety for others looking to have their children born at this hospital...

personally I never let my babies out of my or my husbands sight ever while we were in the hospital.....we were always haunted by the stories of babies accidentally being switched by the nurses and the nurses at the hospital repeatedly kept trying to get us to circumcise our sons...when we were adamant that we absolutely did NOT want such a procedure being performed on our babies----I didn't know any of these nurses and I certainly don't give my trust blindly in regards to my children...

yeah, these nurses would have a fight from me too..........and I am a real bear when it comes to protecting my kids....and I never gave a good @#$%amn what the hospital rules were, my husband and I were the legal guardians and biological parents and our rights super ceded ALL...

the nurses put the babe in danger by attacking the father...what did they expect!...

I have one sentence for these nurses......"back off #itch!".

The hospital staff in the states think they own you and your child. Yes. this is why home births *if your healthy* are the best idea.

@ Debbie, what have your scenarios got to do with someone being a jerk? I might ask that I be allowed to walk with my newborn baby around the block too and if the answer is "no" at first, I am perfectly capable of calmly walking back with the nurses (whom I would respect for being equally sure that they would prevent a stranger from walking out of the hospital or mixing babies up, things you are paranoid about) to speak with the supervising agent and resolving permission peacefully. The nurses weren't trying to "own" the baby or "take" it for nefarious reasons, they were trying to protect it. If you can produce any evidence that these nurses for some spontaneous reason decided to attack Kennedy and steal the baby for sake of having "fun" or something, you might have a case. But somehow I doubt you'll find that there was nothing here but the trained protective responses of nurses. If you can't be stopped at a door yet politely work things out with well-intended people who would most certainly cede (particularly at the encouragement of the now-meddling doctor), perhaps you have an emotional issue. Kennedy was a jerk.

"...most recently worked as a general assignment reporter and a by monthly news program host for Faux News"! Well, that explains it all!

Booze or Drugs? Both are staples in the Kennedy cabinet.

He was with a doctor, a professional, who cleared his action to take the baby for fresh air. A doctor's decision trumps a nurse every time. Douglas is a four time father. This nurse need to be fired for insubordination.

@ Debbie, what have your scenarios got to do with someone being a jerk? I might ask that I be allowed to walk with my newborn baby around the block too and if the answer is "no" at first, I am perfectly capable of calmly walking back with the nurses (whom I would respect for being equally sure that they would prevent a stranger from walking out of the hospital or mixing babies up, things you are paranoid about) to speak with the supervising agent and resolving permission peacefully.

PERMISSION? It's HIS baby! Who in hell are the nurses to tell him what he can and can't do with HIS child? Are you people serious? Wow, just wow.

Debbi, the administrators and nurses tried to do the same thing to my first son. At least four times they brought a form for me to sign to have my baby boy mutilated. It almost appeared like they wanted the easy insurance money for the procedure. I finally took the form and wrote on it, ' you touch his foreskin and I will sue.' That put the issue to rest immediately.

As far as the law is concerned the parents are the legal guardians and ultimately responsible for the child's well being.

They are serious, healthcare workers have become so afraid of lawsuits they now jump at their own shadows. It has reached a point where nurses are genuinely shocked at the idea of just going for a walk with your newborn baby. This is a quote from a maternity nurse lower down in these threads "You cannot simply wander around the hospital with your newborn in your arms and come and go as you please" If she wasn't serious this would be funny. Furthermore people feel that it is perfectly appropriate to deny healthcare to people who don't agree with such draconian rules, but even then there are many reports of people who were told to "discharge at own risk if you don't like the rules" and yet when they do exactly that they are then reported to child protection services.

Taking a newborn baby out for fresh air on January 7th in New York? He WAS endangering the welfare of a child. Too cold.

You're allowed to leave the hospital even against doctor's orders but are required to sign discharge papers acknowledging it's a discharge without the consent of the doctor.

Did Kennedy choose to bypass this procedure because, well, he's a Kennedy?

Btw, just stepping outside the hospital doors to go for a walk is considered a discharge.

I can't decide which is weirder.....A Kennedy working for Faux 4 news or a father of a newborn taking the newborn out for a stroll on a January day. Wasn't high on my priorities when my child was born. I agree with a post above....if there wasn't a family member who for some reason couldn't go into the hospital, sitting in a car waiting to see the new family member....drugs and/or alcohol involved.

Odd....nothing liberal about Faux 4 news....spin spin spin.........

And the cops actually charged him for exercising his parental rights and responsibilities? If he is handed any punnishment for this action I will be very surprised. The hospital employees are not the Parent they are temporary guardians and do not exercise more authority over a child in their care than a parent.

The Nurses should be fired and Kennedy should sue them for endangerment of his child, with the prceeds of any settlement going to an organization for shaken baby. Of course their story is suspect, there are many among us who would gladly have a law suit against a Kennedy...it could be a very nice pay day with the hope of a quiet settlement.

A newborn baby should not be exposed to germs unnecessarily. Its immune system has not developed. And it certainly should not be taken outside for a walk in January.

This is a spoiled brat "man" who needs a good hard spanking. And the wife is a moron.

Wonder how nature was able to produce life all by itself without the intervention of modern medicine. This baby ran a risk of life due to the response of this nurse and not by germs or cold. A four time father really does not know what he is doing. (not).

In most hospitals once you leave the floor with your kid, you are not allowed back on the maternity floor, because of the risk of infection. Just because he's Kennedy it doesn't mean he can violate public health laws.

Or maybe it does. They get away with everything else.

Taking a kid 2 days old outside with my wife still in bed after a caesarian seems a little sketchy, especially in January.

Just more people doing what they think is OK, even if the experts think it's not. Take a scalpel and do your own appendectomy, if you know so much.

Cassie so now you know better for this mans child than he does? It does not matter what the climate conditions were the strangers did not have any authority to interfere with a Father and his son. By the fact there was a Dr. present who, through his own professional credentialsdeemed the outing appropriate, speaks to the responsibility of the father to have sought information about this action.

As for germs...he wasn't taking the newborn to a mall or McDonalds or even to the pediatrician office for a two week visit...He was going for a walk outside. In an environment that was probably less germ filled than a newborn nursery and certainly cleaner than public areas of a hospital.

These nurses were strangers....no different from a nanny or teacher....their reaction was over the top and wrong. He is not a stranger trying to kidnap a child he is the father who has all of the rights and responsibility for that child. The Nurses had no right to interfere and certainly no right to create a dangerous situation for the baby. They certainly had no right to set an alarm that indicated he was kidnapping his own flesh and blood.

IMHO, I think all parties involved behaved badly. But I do understand the nurses trying to protect the newborn.

Intensive care, agreed. The doctor present knows best along with the father. The rest is mere speculation. I would be more worried about the super germs on the maternity ward.

Even the best of intentions can come out wrong. I just wonder if the nurse was worried about the baby, as much as a father or mother would be, or just afraid of repercussions for procedures being broken on her watch. Besides, wouldn't someone higher up the authority chain be responsible for escalating. If not the hospital needs to review their escalation procedures.

We know how this turns out: The Chap's Acquitted.

Did some of you NOT read the article? It states he was accompanied by a DOCTOR!!! I do believe, the last time I checked, that DOCTORS have the final say over bitchy nurses. Besides, take one tiny microbiology course in school and you'll learn that hospitals are the number one place found to be crawling with bacteria, viruses and pathogens. That baby was safer outside!

The doctor states it right - the only aggressors were the nurses.

This is simply atrocious. I wonder if he was on drugs. It definitely went over the line when he kicked a nurse in the pelvis ! What is he, a black belt ? And he fell down with the baby in his arms. He seemed to be more interested n getting his way than the baby's welfare. If he was within his rights, the proper way would have been to talk to the Administrator. Unless, of course, he wanted to do the old Gypsy thing : throw the baby into freezing water to see if it survives.

Sad to see people putting themselves above the law and getting away with it. It is a disgrace ! btw : all the bad spellers back him up.... hm....

Many of you who are crying out against these nurses for preforming their jobs to the stated direction of their employers are the same lot who would sue when given permission to leave the hospital for a nice walk that resulted in the child becoming sick. Of course it would never be your fault then, those horrible nurses were irresponsible to allow a 2 day old child outside in the winter. Procedures are in place for a reason in hospitals, and when there is so much sickness going on in a hospital, people with insufficient immune systems are at a greater risk to catch something. Newborns fall into that category and that is why they are effectively quarantined inside the birthing center. If you think you may have a problem with hospital procedures then you should do your research before hand to see if that particular hospital is a proper fit for you and your loved ones, you do have a choice.

Probably kicked her off as a defensive move to protect the baby all the while his hands were occupied holding a baby. The nurse's actions placed the baby in worst danger. If Mr. Kennedy was such a threat to the baby then you do not confront him while he has the baby in his hands. This nurse forgot herself.

Leave the child where it belongs in the hospital you frikin moron Kennedy.

OMG, will we ever be done with the Kennedy crime family???

There are a LOT of unanswered questions in this and his actions seem highly suspect.

1: the 'doctor' was a family friend. He was NOT the child's doctor, who should have been consulted about the baby's status before this lark.

2: It was January in NY and this retard wanted to take a 2 DAY old infant out in that cold weather! That right there made him out to be a nut! Was it known to the MOTHER than he was doing something so irresponsible?

3: It was the nurses DUTY to protect the child even if it is from the father. If he was so set on taking a child that young out of the nursery and out into winter weather then he should have signed the child out of the hospital and released them from liability if the child died from doing that.

4: Why was he so adamant that he take the child THAT MINUTE that he attacked the nurses barring him from leaving!

Absolutely amazing!!! None of you were present when the incident occurred, yet you think that you are entitled to judge who is at fault. Talk about jumping to conclusions! Jeez! Where did you all earn your law degrees? How do you know the first thing about what is actually legal under these circumstances. If Kennedy had taken the baby out into the cold January air and he caught pneumonia, you would all be blaming the nurses for not preventing him from leaving with the baby.

The video pretty much speaks for itself regarding whether Kennedy abused the nurses. That nurse didn't fall on her back for no reason, and it's obvious from the force of the fall how hard he kicked her. No one is allowed to kick anyone over an incident like this, particularly a woman, for any reason. If Kennedy wanted to take the baby out of the hospital so badly, he should have followed procedure and signed the appropriate papers. I hope they throw the book at him and that he isn't able to buy his way out of this.

Funny how people collapse a comment when they do not agree with your opinion. 23 upticks would mean that others have the same opinion. Re-post.

Peter Jacobs Comment collapsed by the community

He was with a doctor, a professional, who cleared his action to take the baby for fresh air. A doctor's decision trumps a nurse every time. Douglas is a four time father. This nurse need to be fired for insubordination.

• 23

#1.20 - Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:22 AM EST

Peter Jacobs is an idiot !

Dave the web guy-

the fact that the nurses tried to grab the newborn out of the arms of his father was enough to cause the baby injury. It is the nurses who should have talked, the nurses who could have gone with the father and babysat if they thought something was awry...............but their goal was to obtain "possesion" of the fathers child. You know they knew this was the father after days on being in the hospital and interacting with the staff, and with the doctor explaining the situation the nurses could have still accompanied them for the walk if they so chose insuring the infants safety to their satisfaction...but to try to rip a fathers babe out of his arms was the "danger" here. I'm sure they would have had no problem taking the baby to the mother in her room and had the father then taken the child for a walk do you think they would have accosted him and tried to retrieve the child?

Having had four children and four different experiences I can tell you that there were 5 nurses in total that I felt were trying to arrange my sons circumcisions ( my husband finally had to raise his voice to get them to listen and every time he came into the room he would check to make sure they had not "inadvertently" performed the procedure), being overly rough with my newborns (smacking a newborn till his eyes pop and causing him to dry in pain and fear is not how to burp a baby!) and the idea that THEY wanted to decide when my "visit" with my child was over and being condescending (even when it was my fourth child...trust me I knew what to do) and acting as though attending to their duties was a shear irritant...........

Do not think that just becuase people are in the business of caring for others that they "care"...........people are people and when they bring their personal life and attitudes to work and inflict them on the patients the outcome can be horrendous.

My daughter had similar experiences with her two children at another hospital and a friend of mine who had her two children at the same hospital as my daughter, only 30 years earlier, had the same attitude after her second one....with the first one you think maybe you did something wrong to piss off the nurses but after the second one you know it IS the nurses and both stated they would NEVER deliver another child at that hospital again.

I know a nurse who used to call me and laugh about what went on in the doctors office where this person worked, between the patient and herself and the doctor...private stuff....personal stuff (like what diseases they were being treated for and comments about their anatomy--very private parts of their anatomy....and I knew some of these people...when I told this person that no one should be talking about anything to do with the patients I was told that it was funny and how we went to school with some of these people.....

I had to hang up on this person to get the conversation to end as this person was having such a great time sharing these individuals personal experiences that I thought it would never end no matter how many times I asked for it to stop.

So my experiences have taught me that nurses can be rude, condescending, physically abusive, controlling, unwilling to listen and certainly there are those that completely disregard a patient/doctor relationship and REQUIRED privacy..

so, if you want to NEGOTIATE for your rights as a parent with the staff then by all means do so..........I do not negotiate for what is already mine.

If it was anyone else who did this..they be sitting in a jail cell waiting for a court hearing for a criminal charge.

Since when can you take a two day old baby out to get some fresh air? The hospital has to give the person release paper-work first....so they will not be responsible if something happens.

Side note to MSNBC..get rid of those older/newer buttons on your web pages..they only get in the way for replies and not needed... all browsers have a forward and back button already!

I'm not sure what's weirder.....a Kennedy working for Faux News or him trying to take a newborn out for a stroll on a January day. I know that wasn't a priority when my child was born.

Thinking drugs and/or alcohol.

Anyone can leave the hospital without the doctor's consent by signing a discharge form acknowledging you are leaving without your doctor's approval.

Did Kennedy bother to sign the form, or because he's a Kennedy, felt he could just skip that procedure.

In jail for what, Mike, taking your own healthy newborn? The doctor said the kid was fine and there was no reason to think he would be endangered. Who were the nurses to tell him he couldn't take his child?

Not a fan of the Kennedys', but it seems to me like the nurses should be charged with interfering with custody, a crime in most states. They started it, and they escalated it.

The ONLY reasons they would have any right to stop him: If the child was in significant danger health-wise, or if they could not confirm he was the father. It does not appear that either was the case.

Also Debi, there is no law that says you have to sign anything to leave a hospital. That is just the hospital's procedure, which really means nothing legally. He also intended to return, so why wold he check out?

This was just a case of overzealous nurses, thinking they can do whatever they want. They will probably get sued now.

Kevin C: If you are going to be admitted to their hospital, it's their "house", their rules. If he failed to follow their procedure and didn't sign their required discharge form acknowledging he was discharging his child on his own accord without the consent of the treating doctor, he broke their rules.

Anytime you walk out the hospital doors, even for just a walk, it's considered a discharge.

this was not an adult patient leaving the hospital AMA.

This was an 'adult' male attempting to leave the hospital with a newborn infant. Were the nurses supposed to just believe he was truly the baby's father? NO!!!

Did he have a hospital ID bracelet that matched the baby's? The nurses cannot just let anyone leave the hospital with a baby.

Those saying that the nurses should not have interfered would be the 1st to blame the nurses/hospital if someone walked out with someone else's baby.

The nurses were doing their JOB and it was Kennedy that overreacted.

So maybe someone broke the rules. These hospital and medical people need to tone it down. Just because they have rules doesnt mean people have to follow them. If people break the rules, then follow the procedure in place for that circumstance. But dont bodily try to stop people with their babies if they are basically doing nothing wrong. Common sense.

Safe to say with 4, he knows how to hold a baby. Walking with their doctor? Geez, the overzealous nurses surely knew Kennedy was likely walking to another floor of the hospital to show the healthy 2-day-old to family. Many hospitals no longer allow siblings and non-parents on the maternity floor.

Kevin C A child is the property of the state. The state will allow you to love and raise your child. Abuse or mistreat your child and see what happens.

You blame the nurses for protecting the health of the infant? Kennedy is lucky if no criminal charges are brought up against him. Assault and putting a child's life in danger.

Let me explain it like this, if I punch you in your stupid face will I get assault charges?

jb98degrees

In jail for what, Mike, taking your own healthy newborn? The doctor said the kid was fine and there was no reason to think he would be endangered. Who were the nurses to tell him he couldn't take his child?

I'm sure he never thought the nurses would stage an assault on him just for trying to take his baby for a walk. Who TF do they think they are?

Danny-3091525 - The Physician was NOT the doctor who delivered the baby. Another case of a Kennedy acting in a violent and aggressive manner. Hat's off the the Nursing Staff for protecting the baby. The doctor that was with Kennedy needs be looked at very carefully by the hospital. Another Trust Fund person thinking money and name allows him to do whatever he wishes.

What was the necessity to take the baby outside? How do all of us survive without doing this ourselves? Most hospitals do allow a visitation for siblings, get with the times. They are structured to not expose the baby, but they do exist. This is a case of arrogance and the nursing staff not knowing how to handle it. I suspect they knew who he was, so the bracelets are not the issue. But there are better ways to handle it. Call security when he first refused and that would have put the situation to an end.

I, for one, don't get this story, which is frequently the case with news items that appear on MSNBC. You read the story and you just know that you're missing information that would make the story logical. But news isn't based on journalism standards anymore--this is mainstream media: get as much info as you can, don't bother to check it, print it.

I'm assuming that Kennedy is in jail or out on bail having been arrested for assaulting medical staff.

Why was he taking a newborn outside for a walk? Yes, it's his baby but the hospital is liable for patients until they are discharged. If he wanted more control, he should have arranged a home birth.

Not all medical staff are sure of who the fathers are, particularly because fathers don't deliver babies, certainly not in operating rooms. I wouldn't know Douglas Kennedy if he rang my doorbell. He could have been anybody walking out with a baby and the hospital staff were 100% within their rights to prevent him from leaving with the baby.

According to other news reports:

1. Mr Kennedy had permission from the relevant nursing staff to take his infant outdoors.
2. Mr Kennedy, Mrs Kennedy, and the infant wore matching ID bracelets which identified them as father, mother and baby.
3. These nurses did not make any attempt to check Mr Kennedy's ID bracelet, nor did they try to match his bracelet with the infant he was carrying, they simply tried to prevent him from leaving, nor did they follow procedure which is in every hospital to
4. Call a Code and call Security.

One wonders if now they know there are deep pockets involved, they're suing for the purpose of a payoff. There's a lot that's wrong with the way they behaved in this action. Why did they not notify Security? Did they plan this in advance? Did they target a rich man?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Debi-1314897, so if you are at my house, I can say "you can't leave"? I didn't think so. Try again.

Their "rules" are not laws, and are not enforceable, but apparently, you do not get that simple point. The nurses caused the problem, not Kennedy.

If the nurse felt that the infant was in danger, or that Mr. Kennedy was not the father of the infant, she should have immediately called security and let them handle the situation, anything more is overreach.

Kevin C: All Kennedy had to do was follow the rules he and his wife agreed to when they chose that hospital to be responsible for the care and safety of their newborn.

If rules are not enforceable, why have them?

According to news reports, nurses called two codes--first a Code Pink, then a Code Purple.

I applaud these nurses. One reason security is so stringent in these maternity wards is because people have walked off with babies. I'd want these nurses protecting my baby at the risk they might be wrong about something.

I can't imagine checking into a hospital and then telling medical staff that I will not be following any of their rules. I have a feeling they'd tell me to choose another hospital.

Most important, I can't fathom walking out into January weather with a newborn. Why is this so urgent? It defies common sense.

BlueBurner, they knew he was the father, since the security the bracelets matched, so this was not about some unknown walking off with a child. Other than that, it is not up to them, or anyone else, to determine "common sense', or why he wanted to leave. Once they know it is his child, it is his legal right.

Kevin C.: You were not there; maybe the mother claimed someone was leaving the hospital with her baby without her permission. Her paternity was proven, but there wasn't sufficient time to prove his.

the nurses were in thier right they are there to protect these infants too. Kennedy is like all the rest who think they can do whatever they want without any repercussions , he knows the rules and has to follow them like anyone else. then he assaulted the nurses I hope they sue him. he had no right to kick one and twisted anothers wriste . I dont care who he thinks he is but I am sick of the kennedys none of them are any good.

Her paternity????????

KevinC - were you there? I work in a hospital; no one can just walk off the floor, especially with a newborn infant - father or not. And the physician described in the story is a family friend. Is he on staff at the facility? and even if he is, is he the attending physician of the patient, the BABY?

Security is so stringent on a maternity floor for a reason. YOU get with it and understand what a patient's rights and RESPONSIBILITIES are.

KevinC - were you there? I work in a hospital; no one can just walk off the floor, especially with a newborn infant - father or not. And the physician described in the story is a family friend. Is he on staff at the facility? and even if he is, is he the attending physician of the patient, the BABY?

Security is so stringent on a maternity floor for a reason. YOU get with it and understand what a patient's rights and RESPONSIBILITIES are.

How do you know that? These nurses should be sent to jail for leveling false accusations. The nurses wanted to make him do something that they saw fit, but they have no right to do that. It's his child. He did not do anything to endanger the child. He even had an MD next to him. End of story.

The nurses better prove that he was really endangering the child, because if they acted like this for no good reason, it is them who endangered the child. And for that they should go to jail.

probably the doctor that supply's them with all their drugs !!!

Yeah, they would have interfered. Unfortunately these days nurses get the "god syndrome" thing going just like doctors. Reaching for the baby, no matter what excuse she dreamed up later, was stupid and did more to endanger the infant than the baby's father (note that he was accompanied by a doctor???) did. She should be fired.

The nurses wanted to make him do something that they saw fit, but they have no right to do that.

Are you serious??

The nurses' job is to know more than him about the safety of his newborn. Let's see...

"No, Mr. Kennedy, you make not take your 2 day old child into the January night for a walk. We follow a protocol in this hospital to protect your 2 day old newborn. If you choose to not follow protocol, we will continue to follow protocol and call the proper authorities. They're called rules, sir, and yes, they apply to you, too."

How DRUNK was Kennedy when this incident took place. Just because he was with "his doctor", he would not have "legal authorization" unless the attending physician aka "his wife's doctor first authorized the removal of the infant" and that is "standard medical procedure".

NO doctor is permitted to "attend to" another physician's patient without prior authorization, regardless of the "last name" and/or HOW DRUNK the father of the child happens to be.

This Kennedy was "out of line" and "pushing the limits of self-entitlement mindset", which is "quite common" for the Kennedy kids.

Just like his philandering uncles, and especially like the fat, drunken MURDERER Teddie, the entire incident will get "swept under the rug". If you can do what Teddie did and get away with it... THIS little stunt is absolutely meaningless.

end of story

Congratulations Eric the Well-Read you just made the nominations list for most uninformed person of the year. Hospital doctors and nurses don't get paid more for keeping you in the hospital longer. This is not listed as one of the reasons for the cost of health care skyrocketing. What is you might ask? Ding ding, the answer is defensive medicine or unnecessary tests doctors do because they don't want to get sued for missing something. Another cause, re-admittance to the hospital because you were too stupid to take your meds or change your lifestyle because you like eating at McDonalds. Or better yet, because you don't carry insurance or pay for it but you still want to be cared for by a health care professional and thus other people have to foot the bill.

When you're sick and dieing, don't let those evil hospitals get your money. You just stay home.

Some doctors do have a holier than thou attitude and hopefully they'll get weeded out as the newer generations become more patient centered. Unfortunately there will always be bad apples like this ER doctor who was overstepping his bounds on a floor where he has no authority.

@Michael, the nurses and hospital staff don't have to "prove" anything, that's the District Attorney's job during trial. And considering that after more than a month of investigating the incident (baby was born first week of January) the DA has decided to file charges against Kennedy and NOT the nurses or hospital staff, I think the DA believes he has enough evidence to warrant the charges. I don't necessarily understand why the child endangerment charge was filed or if that will hold up, we'll see. But if he so much as laid a finger on those nurses he definitely deserved the assault charges. Too bad he wasn't in NY - it's a felony to assault hospital staff while they are on duty.

The ER MD had no authority, legal or otherwise, to be trying to give orders to the nurses which would cause them to abandon their security protocols. He was simply trying to use his title to manipulate the situation, and he too should be investigated for misconduct. Just because someone has MD after their name and works in a hospital does NOT mean they can go into any ward of the hospital and give orders to nurses regarding patients that he is not directly attending over. An ER doctor would not be the attending provider of an OB or a pediatric patient.

Again, I challenge anyone who has a better, less restrictive yet equally protective security protocol for maternity units to come forward. I'm sure I'll get a huge raise if I can implement a new system that works better than what we've got.

Most people who have a baby are released from the hospital after 24-48 hours. Since the mother had to stay longer because of a C-section the hospital rules should be followed. Although, I cannot see the need for a baby to have January fresh air. Kind of cold and breezy I would assume. He will get off on the charges because he is a Kennedy. Remember all of the drugs charges they all beat. They have never done time for any of those cases. The females in the Kennedy family seem to be the only ones who can live without a lot of conflict and acting out.

Actually, near the end, the story says the baby was healthy. And I'm inclined to think that the average Kennedy, especially the dad of 3 other kids, would know how to hold a baby!

JustMe, I agree. Furthermore, most heathy, two-day olds have already been sent home with the parents--unless the hospital is trying to gouge the insurance company or wealthy parents. Also, I don't understand how nurse(s) trump the order of a physician, Haygood, assuming he was the attending. There's more going on here than this story has told us, so I'll reserve judgment. But based on what's come out so far, it is indeed "absurd" that some nurse would set off an alarm for kidnapping or missing infant, when the parent is the one being accused. The NURSE is the one that jeopardized the child's safety and instigated the struggle. Seems she over reacted or the hospital is trying to (i) cover their a$$es or (2)bilk the family. Maybe they were trying to hold the baby until the parents or insurance company paid theb ill, which is also unconscionalbe and illegal. Unless their is more info, I say fire the nurse(s) involved and let the parents take their baby home.

drushalli, If this was an ER doctor he most certainly was not listed as an attending MD in either the baby's or the mother's chart. I am betting with 99.9% certainty he had zero authority to do what he did by trying to act in the role of patient escort / security / ordering physician. Furthermore, nobody said that the nurse set off a kidnapping alarm, but if she did, how does she know who this man is? Other than his name is Kennedy, I doubt that anyone here knows what this guy looks like. Are the nurses supposed to assume this guy was the father? (OR for that matter, the nurses wouldn't likely know the ER doctor by sight either since maternity and ER staff rarely work together). Can you imagine if this had been an actual kidnapping attempt on this high-profile family? Or what if the family decided to set up some kind of a "sting" to see if they would be lax on security, placing their infant at risk?

Even if he was known to be the father, that isn't the point. The point is that for the smooth operations and security of the entire maternity unit, there has to be rules in place. Those rules mean that nobody takes a baby off the maternity unit until the baby is discharged. Period. It isn't mentioned in this article, but MANY hospitals these days put little security transmitters on newborns' ankles which, when brought too far from the maternity ward, trigger alarms and lock down stairwells and elevators, so potentially this can cause a lot of problems for staff if people are trying to wander all over the place. The hospital staff, as a security measure, sees it as a visual cue to potential abduction when they see people wandering around with a newborn in their arms, without pushing the newborn's bassinet with them. We teach parents that they need to have that bassinet with them at all times for that reason, to make it easier on us to know the baby belongs with the adult. If hospitals allowed all parents to walk freely about the hospital with their newborns, they would have to stop them every 10 feet to check identification and make sure the baby belongs with them. It's a waste of hospital resources.

If you don't like hospital policies, take your healthy baby and go home. Or complain to management. But don't bully the nurses who are doing their jobs and trying to not get fired because they didn't follow protocol.

@living in the grey.....I TOTALLY agree with you, being this childs father does not give him the right to break very important rules of the hospital..they are there for all the people of the ward to follow and be protected by. If the dad had taken the baby out and he became ill or had gotten hurt, you can bet the Kennedy boy would be sueing the pants off the hospital. If this guy is the dad of 3 other kids, than he damn well knew the procedures and rules of a hopitals maternity ward, he just felt to entitled to have to follow them. He should be charged with indangerment, he just as easily could have stopped, walked back to the room, and asked for the baby to be discharged and left safely..he didn't..he put his baby in harms way !..as for the Doctor, fire his ass too...Just becasue you "know" a Kennedy does not meen you can brake the rules either...Mr Put Your Nose in the Wrong place ( up a Kennedys ass). These hopitals are responsible for the well being and saftey of these babies at everycost in my book, and these nurses did the right thing ! period !...by the way Mr Kennedy, do society a favor and have your next kid at home so we can all sleep better knowing the rules wont have to be broken because a Kennedy is in the hosptial.

@living in the grey.....I TOTALLY agree with you, being this childs father does not give him the right to break very important rules of the hospital..they are there for all the people of the ward to follow and be protected by. If the dad had taken the baby out and he became ill or had gotten hurt, you can bet the Kennedy boy would be sueing the pants off the hospital. If this guy is the dad of 3 other kids, than he damn well knew the procedures and rules of a hopitals maternity ward, he just felt to entitled to have to follow them. He should be charged with indangerment, he just as easily could have stopped, walked back to the room, and asked for the baby to be discharged and left safely..he didn't..he put his baby in harms way !..as for the Doctor, fire his ass too...Just becasue you "know" a Kennedy does not meen you can brake the rules either...Mr Put Your Nose in the Wrong place ( up a Kennedys ass). These hopitals are responsible for the well being and saftey of these babies at everycost in my book, and these nurses did the right thing ! period !...by the way Mr Kennedy, do society a favor and have your next kid at home so we can all sleep better knowing the rules wont have to be broken because a Kennedy is in the hosptial.

Maybe they were trying to hold the baby until the parents or insurance company paid theb ill, which is also unconscionalbe and illegal. Unless their is more info, I say fire the nurse(s) involved and let the parents take their baby home.

you almost got that right. What the hospital needs to do is request that he and the baby be remoed from the hospital as soon as possible. baring an actual emergency - he should find other facilites to care for his child, since he is unable to follow rules and procedure at that hospital.

Most of all he needs to apologize to the nurses and ask for forgiveness. The ER doctor should lose Hospital privileges for a period of time. If he wants to being an advocate for the Kennedy's fine - then become a celebrity doctor and quit screwing with policies in a working hospital.

I agree with you, Laurali. Nurses, doctors, and hospital staff in general adopt this holier-(and-more-knowledgeable)than-thou attitude, as though some quasi-legal authority has been conferred upon them. What ever happened to the Patient's Bill of Rights? By golly, if I want to leave a medical facility, why should I allow anyone to interfere?

One of the reasons that health care costs have spiralled out of control is medical personnel's insistence that we "stay a little longer, submit to this test, that procedure, take this medicine". They know best, obviously, because they have PHD's or nursing degrees, right? Forget that their income depends on convincing us that we are, perhaps, sicker than we thought, and only they know how to cure us. When I take my car into the shop, I'm always a little leery of mechanics who would misdiagnose its ailments and claim to repair some phantom problem just to pad their bottom line. So too the medical profession abounds with unscrupulous characters who, in much the same way, prey upon our fears and anxieties, and charge exorbitant prices for things we don't need and haven't requested. "Relax, insurance will cover it", and we are reassured. Tell you what - let's pretend that it won't, that we can forgo most of these 'necessary procedures', and see if can't heal ourselves and, at the same time, our broken health care system.

@Laurali, thanks for dismissing my life's work as quick to judge and holier-than-thou. I can't tell you how good that makes me feel. Is my sarcasm showing yet?

No doubt you've had bad experiences with nurses. As a nurse, I've had my run-ins, too. And (no sarcasm), I'm sorry you've had problems.

I'd like to point out though, what you see as holier than thou is sometimes my attempt to make sure you don't end back up in the hospital. "Mr. Jones, your heart is weak, so when you go home, please limit your fluids. Don't drink more in a day than what fits in a 2-liter soda bottle" Mr. Jones nods. Three days later, he's back on my floor drowning in fluid, because he was "thirsty." When I ask him what happened he says, "Oh I knew you could give me that med that would make me all OK. So here I am." When I go out in the hallway, I want to bang my head against the wall. Perhaps that makes me quick to judge.

Every shift, every day, we see stories just like this. We clean you up, we feed you, we protect you - sometimes from yourself - and if we don't...if we slip up once...we're horrible people who don't care.

Hi Anna Marie,

I'm an RN too and I don't like generalizations either.The profession needs more good ones like you. But I think Laurali's point that there are so many bad apples in the profession who are attracted to nursing for a lot of wrong reasons-one being that they love the power and "authority" that they think they have over life and death situations, and in their minds, over customers-that they cause the public to be distrustful of nurses who are(we hope) legit, in a case like this where there was a power struggle.

You talk to customers in an authoritative tone because you are concerned for their welfare, however far too many do so because they're on a power trip and may even abuse their position when they are alone with vulnerable customers.Thus when the public reads a story like this one they don't know whether to believe that the nurses had a valid reason for trying to detain Mr. Kennedy or whether they just couldn't stand for him to not do what they wanted even though he was the child's parent.

Glad for everybody involved that there was a security camera and that nothing happened to the tape, so hopefully the truth can come out, whatever it may be.

I worked in the nursery of a hospital for 10 years. Rules are that a newborn baby can't leave the maternity floor until discharged from the hospital's care. Those nurses were following the rules. If they had let Kennedy walk out of the hospital and a supervisor had been called those nurses would have been written up and at worst fired for putting their patient at risk. I don't care if he had 4 kids or 10. Sign the discharge papers and get the f' out of the hospital if you want to take the kid for a "walk". Suppose he was allowed to take the kid outside and he dropped the infant?? Damn straight the hospital would be sued...baby's on their watch until discharge. Trying to circumvent rules, especially on a maternity ward is absurd.

Also, this "doctor" was a family friend. No where in the article does it say that this doctor was a pediatrician or an ob/gyn. So give me a break. You don't like the rules...take yourself, your kid, and your wife and leave, but don't kick people, fall with your kid, and run down the stairs like some idiot. Sign the papers fully taking responsibility for your kid first, and leave. BTW, once you do that, the baby isn't allowed back in the nursery...has to be admitted to the hospital all over again. So, if the baby had any distress after the fact, it's the ER for you! I'm all for patients rights, but seriously, he's a fool. Good going Kennedy...what an ass.

This is hands down the most informed comment I've read here. Thanks Christine!

@Christine: Perfect! Just perfect!

@Christine-I am a physician. I have experience in the hospital setting, just as you do.

Please stop touting hospital rules as justification for prohibiting a parent from bonding with his child. A 'Rule' is not infallible. Some rules are in place for bureaucratic/liability-limiting measures and nothing more.

Step outside the box for one moment-what harm would have come to the baby if the father took his son outside? Exposure to cold? Babies have a plethora of brown fat; in addition swaddling could have been offered to the father to put on the child. Exposure to pathogens? Laughable. Does the risk of contracting an infection decrease to zero once the discharge orders have been signed? (sarcasm intended).

This situation was handled horrible by both parties (without further context, Kennedy kicking the nurse seems excessive. The nurses should never have tried to physically impede the father from taking his child. They should have hit the code button and called security). But with all that said, no hospital 'rule' trumps a parent's RIGHT to walk with their child (especially if no REASONABLE foreseeable harm could come to the child. We can talk about Kennedy slipping on ice; we can also talk about an ocean liner dropping out of the sky. Both things can happen, but neither are likely. The kid was not going to die going for a walk with his dad outside for a few moments).

Yes, but why outside? You can take the baby to the lounge on the same floor, or even to the mother's room...rules are rules...if he was allowed to break them, then everyone should be allowed. No, if he wants the right to do that, then the baby should have been discharged first.

Absolutely, rules are in place for liability limiting! You have people challenging "frivolous" lawsuits, what is to prevent them but "rules". He didn't like the rule, go against medical advice (AMA) and discharge the baby. That way, no harm, no foul. Hospital isn't liable, and he's in charge.

Also, I understand your point of view Shotyme. I know nothing probably would have happened, but the rules are in place for everyone to be safe. Even for a Kennedy, the rules apply.

Please stop touting hospital rules as justification for prohibiting a parent from bonding with his child. A 'Rule' is not infallible. Some rules are in place for bureaucratic/liability-limiting measures and nothing more.

Step outside the box for one moment-what harm would have come to the baby if the father took his son outside? Exposure to cold? Babies have a plethora of brown fat; in addition swaddling could have been offered to the father to put on the child. Exposure to pathogens? Laughable. Does the risk of contracting an infection decrease to zero once the discharge orders have been signed? (sarcasm intended).

This situation was handled horrible by both parties (without further context, Kennedy kicking the nurse seems excessive. The nurses should never have tried to physically impede the father from taking his child. They should have hit the code button and called security).

You seem delusional. That or have a really bad case of selebrity worship.

No, the danger does not fall to zero... but the liablity is transfered to theone who is taking charge of the baby. Like it or not - establishing liablity, documenting chain of custody is a necessity in today's society. This was not Mayberry, with good ol' Doc Brown ... where the fellas' go out on the veranda, have a cigar and discuss the baby's future over brandy.

Security was called - he was arrested. They tried to reason with him - what they got for taking the reasoning approach was a kick to the groin (which explains the arrest).

As mentioned several times, there were alternative which could have allowed him to "bond" with his baby. Any quiet area "in" the hospital... could have satisfied his need for alone time with the child - without causing the problems which occurred. I understand that fathers often do not feel their rights are honored in the generally matriarchal atmosphere of birth. You make a deposit and then the hens gather and take over for the next 1 to 5 years. But you have to ask yourself - did his behavior make it better or worse?

Had all the tests, whcih are routinely called for in modern births, been completed? Bottom line: you go to the hospital for births for a reason. Generally because you want the security of having percautions in place, just in case. Otherwise the wife, child and you could just as easily take the whole process to a birthing center, hire a mid-wife. The point is, if you want the hospital expereince you kind'a have to signon for the entire process - rules and all. If you want an alternative experience, where you are allowed to dictate, direct the activities then take another option. But, I doubt if they would allow you, our of mis applied judgement to endanger the child... even if the birth were to happen in a field surrounded by farm animals. The birth is about the baby, not the Father and sometimes ... not even about the mother. A successful birth, with no drama is the goal.

Bad Kennedy, bad, bad Kennedy - someone needed a nap...

@Christine-I don't know why outside. YOu have to ask Kennedy. I have no way of knowing what the man was thinking.

I also agree that going outside seems a bit much. But again, I am not Kennedy or the child's father. What I do know is that fromwhat has been relayed here, the kid was not in danger. So I ask again: what is the problem?

I will repeat-no 'Rule' should trupm a parent's right to walk with their child.

PS-As an aside (and not germaine to the argument in my opinion) I am no lawyer, but I would think that if a person left the hospital and never came back while the chart states that they have not been discharged, piece of paper or not, the person has left against the wishes of the medical staff.

What's up with this guy....he is a Kennedy, usually above the law. The doctor was from the ER and a long time friend. Four kids or not, you just swoop into the hospital nursery and remove a child or your child. I hope the accusations are true, I hope there was enough proof on the video. What kind of message is Kennedy sending out to other dads? Sorry, I am over people who think they are bigger than life and can get away with anything!

Beowolf-I would be the LAST person to engage in 'selebrity' (sic) worship.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are massaging the story to fit your conclusion. That is acceptable when you are in grade school, but adults should strive for a higher level of discourse. He was arrested for the violence (and at first blush, that seems appropriate).

As for the child endangerment charge, I will ask again-what did he do, based strictly on the story, to endanger his child? No speculation about exotic tests, or mystery biological attacks outside the hospital. What actions did he engage in that would have been reasonably interpreted as him endangering his child (please do not include any actions that resulted from the nurses impeding him. The nurses escalated the situation)? Thanks.

Hey Shotyme, sounds like you could take a lesson or two from Christine here about rules. Maybe if you did your malpractice insurance premiums wouldn't be so high. Maybe that patient that had his left hand operated on instead of the right hand there wouldn't be so much bad press about botched operations. Or, maybe that doctor that decided it would be okay to fondle the patient while she was under anestesia wouldn't be in the trouble that he's in right now. Actually he's not in too much trouble I suppose, he's practicing in Guam now, at least they'll take the sex offender out of our operating rooms. Don't be such a pompous a$$. If Kennedy wasn't doing anything wrong why did he feel he needed to kick a nurse? Why didn't he just go to the nurses station an settle the issue like resonsible NORMAL adult would?

@pat-and you know how high my insurance rates are, how?

You are calling me an ass while you make assumptions about me, whom you have never met. The irony.

One thing I do know about you-you don't need any facts to support your argument. Just create strawmen and red herrings and joust away.

Have a great day Pat.

You can walk out of the hospital any time you want! It takes a court order or law enforcement personnel to keep anyone there. Some of you are seriously misinformed about your rights both as an individual or as a parent.

@Shotyme, I don't see anything "in the story" that makes me think he was trying to endanger his child. And no doubt, I'm probably projecting my experiences into this (as do most of us who comment on anonymous forums).

Since I'm projecting, I'm going to say that doctor/nurse battles aside, when someone challenges me to "think outside the box," while I'm on duty, they're usually looking for me to be complicit in doing something that's not on the up and up. Yes, there are armband systems in place. Yes, there are checks that happen. Many of these systems (though not all) are reactions to lawsuits and accidents. Some are in place because these are things that the Joint Commission (JC) reviews. Hospitals need reimbursement and - silly as it is - need to maintain their JC status.

I remember when physicians could - and did - order "Narcotic of choice," for post-op pain control. And this was within the last 20 years. Part of me misses those days, since I didn't have to check every 30 seconds with a doctor as to what to give. Talk about being able to "think outside the box!" Another part of me is glad that my patients are safer because blanket orders ike that are no longer allowed.

While I empathize with Mr. Kennedy and his desire to bond with his child in frigid January air, perhaps he could have waited until his newly c-sectioned wife was ready to go home.

Shotyme as you might be aware, the Kennedy twisted the arm of a nurse (battery) and kicked another to the floor (battery) all while hurriedly attempting to do something he obviously understood to be frowned on. The force of which was whirling the child's head around quite harshly. In most every maternity ward in the US as standard of care each child's parent's are informed of the movement protocols for the child in the room, in the hall and up to and including going home with proper care. No one is allowed to move through a hall with a baby in their arms, period. Not even staff. As the father of 3 other children, he knew this. No one is allowed to take a child off the floor out of a bassinet, period. He knew this I'm sure as well.

You might not believe this or like it but the reality is the nurses were responsible for the well-being of that child and seeing a man, father or not, trying to leave the floor with it means that if it comes down to the child's safety, the parents rights get nullified. The nurses responsibilities stop being that of hand-maidens and start being strict rule enforcement representatives of the healthcare organization. Most Hospitals have a code Pink lock-down procedure nowadays because crazy people in the world steal babies. Crazy abusive fathers in bad relationships with the baby mama steal babies. How are the nurses to know or filter out crazy but to address it when they see it. If you are willing to assault/battery a group of women while slinging your 2 day old baby around, I think you qualify for abusive and borderline crazy. If he had just gone back to his room and worked it out with the staff, I'd see a different point of view, but HE got insistent when they said no at the elevator. He physically harmed the two nurses at the stairs when they said no and he argued with the guards downstairs.

The take away lesson in this is be thankful for well trained nurses who are willing to intervene in dangerous situations to enforce the mandated rules for all patrons of a Hospital, despite the name of the patient. I also hope that the ER doctor gets relieved of his position there for interfering and failing to enforce the rules of the Organization. You probably wouldn't think of that but that was a huge slap in the face of those nurses for that leader in their own facility to take the side of someone who was abusing them. I hope they sue him as a individual and he has a nice review with the Medical Board.

@Anna_Marie-I certainly did not mean for 'think outside the box' to be an invitation to be duplicitous. And trust me, I know how tough it can be for nurses. I actually don't think I could be a nurse (I would probably burn out).

I understand that there may have been a rule in place to prevent the abduction of children, but I am hard pressed to believe that there was no room for discussion by both parties to peacefully resolve this. Keneddy should have been in control of his emotions (and his limbs). The nurses should have worked for a compromise.

@southerneyes-I will keep this short, because I have asked this question many times with no good answer. You can go back and look at my old posts supporting my POV.

I will simply ask you this-in wanting to take his child outside, how did Kennedy endanger his child? Answer this for me and we can continue from there. Thank you.

In maternity hospitals/maternity wards that I am familiar with, no one goes in without checking in with the security guard at the door and getting a badge....that means EVERYONE, including the father. There are alarms on all the doors, and stairways, and exit doors lock down when security is breached. No baby leaves (upon discharge) the hospital until ID bracelets are checked (dad wears one, too) and matched to mom and dad's ID bracelets. "Going out for a walk" just isn't going to happen. What if mom and dad are in the middle of divorce or separating? How would the staff know that? What if the baby really was being kidnapped? Did you know most child abductions in this country are by family members? Security measures are there for a reason and most parents are relieved to know those security measures are in place. The pediatric ward in the hospital where I work has similar security measures in place. A "code pink" is standard procedure when a child is removed without permission. When a code pink is announced in my hospital, everyone is immediately on alert on every floor, and no one leaves the entire hospital until the child is returned. It is rare, and most are just "practice" code responses, but the policy is in place and it is followed.

The fact that a doctor was with this father has NOTHING to do with following policies. He was not the mother's or the baby's physician, he was simply a friend with no authority in this situation. I've learned over my 40 years being a nurse that doctors will try to get around policies all the time, often because they are in a hurry, or they want to show their authority.......and that is why most mistakes happen. My colleagues and I get along very well with our physicians we work with, probably because they know we will always be consistent with following our policies.

"What if mom and dad are in the middle of divorce or separating? How would the staff know that? What if the baby really was being kidnapped? Did you know most child abductions in this country are by family members?"

What if he were a reverse vampire? What if he wanted to take his kid to a secret lab to create an evil twin?

We can come up with doomsday scenarios all day,but they are irrelevant. REASONABLY, did anyone expect the child to be harmed by going for a walk with his father? If the nurses had concerns about the child's safety with the father, they should have alerted protection services. No one on this board has any reason to assume that the child was going to be harmed. The question then becomes 'Why would the nurses stop him from walking with his child?' Because a 'rule' says he can't. If that rule can't allow for a parent to bond with their child when there is NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION that harm would come to the child, then the hospital staff is just being authoritarian and nothing more. Rules don't trump rights. PERIOD.

Shotyme - Sorry - you just don't get it. You can't fudge on one policy without ignoring all the policies. I suppose you wouldn't want a safety check by the nurses before heading into surgery because "your" doctor was "above" the policies. Well......you just go ahead, but don't complain when your wrong leg gets operated on because your doctor "too busy" to pay attention to that safety check. Believe me......been there, done that, argued with doctors about it.....then got thanked by them for "catching" their mistake.

@Val-I am a physician. I have had nurses bail me out of potentially bad situations.

I beg to differ, but I believe you don't get it. The crux of the question is this-why did the nurses want to stop him? Because he was endangering the child, or because 'the rules' said that a reasonable parent (who had the consent of his wife, it seems) who wanted to take his for a walk should not be allowed to.

I don't wish to sound pedantic, but there are bad/dumb rules out there. A rule that attempts to subvert a parent's right to walk with his child, is bad/dumb. You would be hard pressed to present an argument that would convince me otherwise, but I invite you to try (without using straw man arguments).

@ Shotyme, I'm not a nurse so I don't have the patience they have. If you are a real physician, then you're making the rest of us look bad so just crawl back into whatever hole you call a practice. Next time someone breaks a "stupid" rule and a hospital gets a lawsuit, how about you pay for it out of your pocket. Rules in the hospital are made to be followed unless there is good reason to break them and wanting to take your baby outside for a "walk" without following proper procedure isn't one of them.

Now you're right, rules don't trump rights, so don't come to the hospital where we practice medicine and have rules in place for patient safety. Have your baby at home and do whatever you want with it. And when it develops jaundice and neurotoxicity from a build up of un-conjugated bilirubin or some other disease don't bring it to the hospital where they have STUPID rules. This is common in lots of countries, like Nigeria where the infant mortality rate is about 10%.

Those nurses were doing their job and unfortunately some out of touch doctor like you is trying to undermine them. Idiots that think they can decide if a rule at the hospital is stupid and bypass it is a huge part of what is causing the cost of health care to go up.

@Danny-Lemme guess. Surgeon?

I am totally against frivolous lawsuits. I firmly believe that defensive medicine is a drain on the health care system. I believe that there are patients who look at a hospital stay or injury as a way to be compensated. I am shake my head when patients overlook the good care they receive at my, or a colleagues, hands. I would be the first to say to someone 'if you don't like hospitals/doctors, perhaps you should find another way to be treated for your ailment'.

So no, I am not suggestion that patients ignore all the rules of a hospital (red herring). I am not saying that no one should be questioned when seen with a baby outside of a nursery (straw man). What I am saying is that YOU DO NOT LOSE YOUR RIGHTS AS SOON AS YOU CROSS THE THRESHOLD OF THE HOSPITAL! And telling any parent that he is not allowed to walk with his son is trampling on his RIGHTS as a parent.

This is your quote- 'Now you're right, rules don't trump rights, so don't come to the hospital where we practice medicine and have rules in place for patient safety.' Danny-simple question. Give me a simple answer. How did Kennedy endanger his child's safety by wanting to take him for a walk? I have asked this question all morning and I have YET to get an answer (even a bad one). So it is on you now: how was Kennedy jeopardizing the safety of his kid? I'll wait for you to answer.

Shotyme - so you keep asking in all your posts why the nurses wanted to stop him? Why not ask him why the need to leave the building? If he wanted to bond, he could spend 24 hours a day with his wife and baby in her room. Anyone would have encouraged that. Yes, I would have stood in front of a door to prevent someone leaving. Why did Kennedy have to kick the nurse? I don't think a lawsuit is going to go anywhere against the nurses. He knew what was expected, he wanted his way.......didn't happen. He would have been stopped by Security, anyway......why not just listen to the nurses and just go back to the baby's room?

By the way - I don't really think you are a physician....something just doesn't "smell right" in your posts.

@val-Does a parent have to defend their decision to do anything with their children? To who? To you? If not you, then whom?

The violence issue-you choose to ignore the escalation in aggression, so there is no point in discussing it further.

Gosh...if I am not a doctor, then I guess I didn't get my medical degree from The Pritzker School of Medicine. I guess I got it via mail-order, huh? Luckily for me and my patients, I don't have to prove my credentials to Val-2313698.

I have to agree with you Val. From the answers Shotyme has given in the above responses I just can't see him being a doctor either. The rules are instituted to protect the patient, even if it is from the patients own parents. Their was possibly no ulterior motive in Mr. Kennedy's actions but due to his violent response to the nurse trying to stop his departure with the child (which was their duty) his actions are highly suspect at the very least!

@Nora-Doctor or not, my alleged, imagined, insinuated (or actual) profession does not dimish my argument (red herring).

Your quote-'The rules are instituted to protect the patient, even if it is from the patients own parents.' Protect the child from what? I'm STILL waiting for a reasonable answer.

Shotyme, just curiosity if you don't mind...Could you please tell us what kind of a physician you are and if you are hospital or private practice. Since turnabout is fair play, I've been a hospital worker for 20+ years and one of my brothers is a doc in private practice.

Do you actually intend to say that it was prudent that he take a 2 day old outside for a WALK in the middle of winter? You've HAD numerous 'reasonable answers' and you refuse to accept them. If he had taken the baby outside and it became sick, it is QUITE possible that it could have spread in the nursery. Whether or not the chance was minimal it was there. Your assertions that the father should have unlimited access and the ability to do whatever he wishes with the child while it is a patient in the hospital is ludicrous!

Shotyme, never mind. Just found your post at 15.3. Thank you.

@Nora-So taking a child out in the winter properly clothed is a crime now? That is the thing that makes him a monster, I suppose. I've changed my mind. Send him to jail right away.

Quote from Nora 'Your assertions that the father should have unlimited access and the ability to do whatever he wishes with the child while it is a patient in the hospital is ludicrous!" Straw man. Show me where I have said that? I have continually claimed that he should be allowed to walk with his son. Show me where I said he should be allowed to do whatever he wants. Thanks

Chefaz-I'm not sure how this will further anyone's positions. I have to admit I am leery of giving out too much info about myself (you will note, I have not challenged anyone's claims about their professions). That said, I practice Pain Management by way of Anesthesia and I am in private practice.

I had already explained it with the opening line.

just curiosity if you don't mind...

Your area of expertise provides a better picture of where you are coming from in all of this.

I'm not sure how this will further anyone's positions

See what I mean???

@Danny-Lemme guess. Surgeon?

@Chefaz-Touche :).

Thank you, Showtyme. hagd. ☺

Shotyme--don't be so doggoned naive about this. Rules can be evaded, or avoided, or changed, but not on the spot. It takes time and going through the proper steps. I'm grateful you have never treated me---your overall attitude scares the crap out of me.

Shotyme - it appears this is the first and only article you've commented on here at msn so far. Just FYI, I don't believe your comments.

Kennedy was so unbalanced and out of control that he fell down while holding a baby. Why was he so out of control to kick someone? Not smart. I'd suggest anger management and large fines at the very least.

Shotyme, I don't think that the child endangerment charge is because he wanted to take the child outside. I think, if we all take a moment to think about it a little bit, we all recognize that if he were to ask to be discharged that day, he would have had to carry the child outside in the cold weather. No one would have arrested him for child endangerment in that instance. I don't know exactly what reasoning the DA used to lead him to charge this father this way, but I trust that he has a full understanding of the facts and the case law (I mean, he is a lawyer. Don't they have a juris doctorate? I mean, the DA probably wouldn't tell you how to administer anesthesia, would he?). Relying strictly on the information included in this article, which is incomplete at best, I believe he is being charged with child endangerment because he assaulted two people while holding his child. You cannot simply argue that because the father believed he was provoked to attack someone he cannot be charged with child endangerment. If I am holding my child in my arms and I get into a fight with someone and the potential is there for my child to be hurt, then I am endangering my child. That nurse was reaching out to protect that baby's head because he was swinging it around, more concerned with someone questioning his rights that he was about possibly banging his child's head against the door. That child's life and well-being was not in imminent danger from the nurse. There was no reason to expect that she was trying to hurt the baby; therefore, he cannot argue that he attacked them in order to protect his child.

I have been a pediatric nurse now for over 13 years. I currently function as a nurse manager at my facility. Parents have entrusted me with their children, the people that mean the most to them in the world, and I take this responsibility seriously. NO ONE gets to put a child at risk, not even the parent. Now, do I think when he and his good friend started out on this jaunt, that he was intending to put his child in danger? No. I imagine that it never crossed his mind that someone would have the nerve to question him.

Hospitals develop policies and procedures for a variety of reasons - state laws, federal laws, in reaction to litigation, to comply with requirments of licensing bodies (JCAHO, state health departments), and to alow their licensed staff (physicians, nurse practitioners and LVNS and RNs) to practice within the rules and regulations of their own licensing bodies (state medical licensing boards and state boards of nursing). As a nurse, I cannot operate outside of the rules and regulations of my state board of nursing, or I could loose my license. If I don't have a license, I don't work. If I don't work, I can't support my family. My licensing board requires that I operate within the policies and procedures outlined by the organization for which I work (whether you agree with those rules or not). If the hospital has established a rule stating that no newborn leaves the unit until he or she is discharged, then I can't circumvent that rule for anyone regardless of his family name. Asking to speak with an administrator should not change that. And, FYI, no physician order can overule a hospital policy, at least not in my facility. Physicians do not run units, nurses do. A small portion of my job as a child's nurse is to carry out physicians' medical orders. But I spend an awful lot of time carrying out other duties that a physician would never think about, duties that are vital to the health and well-being of that child and family unit. As a nurse, do I always agree with some of the rules that are in place? No, I don't. But I have to respect them, and I can't pick and choose what rules I am going to follow. If that makes me seem like a power-hungry, inhuman know-it-all to some, well, I can't help that. I can work through hospital committees to try to change policies that need to be changed, but I cannot simply say that I don't like then, so I won't follow them.

Without the benefit of audio to know what was said and in what tone it was said, it seems that those nurses followed hospital policy. Could they have handled it differently? Maybe so. Could thay have prevented this from escalating so far? Maybe, we may never know. But the only one responsible for Mr. Kennedy's actions is Mr. Kennedy. No nurse carrying out his or her job responsibilites in good faith deserves to be touched in any way by a patient or family member, much less kicked or knocked down onto the floor.

Yes you do need to operate within your policies and procedures, Mr Kennedy however is not legally obliged to follow your professional bodies protocols, if he chooses not to you have the right to inform him that he is breaching policy and you will not take any responsibility for any adverse outcome resulting from that breach. You then have the right to document that in the patients notes and as an incident report and notify your senior. If you feel physically threatened you have the right to call a code and if you feel a law is being broken you have the right to inform the person that you are performing a citizens arrest and call the police.

What you have no right to do at any point is lay a finger on the father or child, that is assault and is illegal, also it is likely to do far more harm in escalating a situation than good. No hospital or professional bodies policies changes that in any way.

@Jodie P

AMEN!!!!!

Aussie @4.48 - In the article it said the nurse was holding the door, and Kennedy then grabbed her and twisted her wrist. The video shows him holding the baby like a football in the crook of his arm. And even after he fell over, he then ran down the stairs with the baby in his arms? Nonsense.

Exactly, she ran from the elevator to the door to prevent him from opening it thereby detaining him, something that she has no authority whatsoever to do.

Shotyme, I just checked out your home page and yes, you are new here. I have to give you a lot of credit for hanging in there. I may not agree with everything that you've written but you've done a stellar job. Don't give up on us. ☺

Jodie P-Your points are taken. I see merit in some of what you say.

I think I have presented my position ad nauseum and I don't wish to rehash my position. That said. I ultimately think the responsibility to deescalate the situation always lies with the professional (In this case the nurses) and that blocking someones path is an act of aggression. I also firmly believe that there can be no rule that can take away a right (in any situation, not just with reference to Kennedy).

One cannot inflame a situation and then be surprised if the person who is the recipient of the aggression decides to react in kind. The nurse may have been reaching for the baby's head. Kennedy may have thought she was trying to harm. In that light (and depending on his state of mind), meeting aggression with aggression is appropriate.

@Pog8-My goodness. I'm so sorry that I don't meet the criteria you have set forth to support my profession or my posts.What penance should I offer you, O Arbiter of the Truth of Internet Professions? What should I do or say to make you believe me? I will spend the rest of the day trying to come to a solution to the harrowing situation. Until I do, luckily for me, my arguments remain valid irrespective of my being an MD or if I work at McD.

@Shotyme: Can you please tell me why it is unreasonable to expect Mr. Kennedy to walk back to the nurse's station and sign off on a release of liability form? Given his family background and access to education, I would think that he is aware that such things exist.

Even with my puny status and limited resources, I have done such things in order to do as I pleased while complying with the procedures and/or protocols of various organizations. I didn't need to kick anyone or twist arms in all of my 46 years...

Legally, you are going to have an uphill battle proving that blocking someone's path is an "act of aggression".

@J-Stat-Firstly I never said it was unreasonable for Kennedy to sign, or not sign, anything (please do not take this as my being snide to you. I am not trying to be so please do not take offense. It just bugs me when someone tries to make me defend a point that I never raised. Nowhere in my arguments did I discuss liability; the hospitals or Kennedy's).

I actually don't think it would be unreasonable for Kennedy to sign a form stating that he would like to walk around the unit, or wherever is reasonable for a parent and child to walk without compromising patient care or safety; the form could have a waiver of liability in it as well. The question is this:was anything communicated to Kennedy as to why he couldn't take his child for a walk? A response of 'it's the rules' is not good enough. A better response would be 'We have determined that walking the halls in an area of the hospital where a large number of the staff have to get to and from patient's room in the event of an emergency poses risks to the parents, children and staff. Therefore we ask that you limit your contact to the nursery or the mother's room/ See? no fuss no muss. That is a good reason as to why he can't walk the halls with his child. If I were presented with a response of 'Because we said so', I would be upset as well. The answer is demeaning and tramples my right to be with my child.

If you were to meet me J-Stat, let's say we were in the office and we were having a heated discussion. You reached your boiling point and got up to walk out. There are no phones. no windows and the muzak is playing so loudly outside that no one could hear you if you were to yell (I know this is not the situation Kennedy was in, but I write all this to illustrate a point). As you head to the door, I get up and block you (I am 6'6", by the way in 'real life'), or put my hand on the door knob. What do you do? How do you feel? What recourse do you have?

PS-I am a nice guy 90% of the time, and if we were to have a heated discussion, I would probably walk out before you did, so again, please recognize that I am just setting up a scenario here and nothing more :).

I would step out of your arm's and leg's length, and try to assess your next move, and what I will do to counter it. I would also stop discussing whatever topic elicited your door-blocking response. My recourse would consist of reporting your behaviour and avoiding future situations with you, if the relationship was voluntary, and if you were a client of mine, avoiding being isolated with you.

Of course, your argument is a bit of a straw man, since a hospital corridor is not quite the same space as a windowless, phoneless, loud-muzaked room with only one point of egress, alone with a guy who is 6'6" blocking your only way out. And a heated discussion is not the same thing as trying to walk off a maternity floor with an infant. Unless your illustration is an attempt to make me believe that Mr. Kennedy felt physically intimidated, isolated, and restricted from movement outside a tiny area? By a couple of female nurses? Who wanted to do what? Make him keep the infant on the unit?

I believe I brought up the idea of what reasonable actions would have been on the part of Mr. Kennedy because you were speculating on what the reasonable expectations of the staff would have been seeing Mr. Kennedy walking the hallways with an infant in his arms. Not the same thing, just both of us speculating on what we think of as reasonable expectations or behaviors. You seem to think that it is more reasonable to expect hospital staff to break protocol when a father tries to walk off unit with an infant without being discharged, and I seem to think it is more reasonable for an adult father of four to realise that he can sign some paperwork if he can muster the patience to do so, thereby avoiding all conflict.

I have personally been in plenty of situations involving heated discussions, and many situations involving physical interventions, in addition to being physically assaulted myself by people who were out of control behaviourally. Still didn't feel the need to kick any of them, or twist their arms. In fact, I would have expected to lose my job and face criminal charges if I had.

But in the immediate period, you would do what? Remain there until I decided you could leave? You would stay there on my terms? You are more patient than I. If I were being falsely imprisoned, I would find a way to walk right through you. I'm not waiting until you decide I can go.

As I clearly pointed out, the scenario I painted was not meant to reflect Kennedy's situation in the hospital. It was to gauge your response to being confined to an area.

"The nurse had no right to attempt to grab our child out of his father's arms and I, Douglas, was shocked and appalled when she did so,". Grab. Kennedy felt that the nurse was trying to grab his child. Grabbing is an aggressive action. Blocking someones path is an aggressive action. The nurse may very well have been reaching out to steady the child's head. In fact, I don't doubt that she was. But the child's dad felt that she was reaching to grab the child. Context colors his actions in my view.

I will always hold that when an individual is a professional, s/he should do everything in their power to deescalate the situation. Grabbing at a child or creating the impression that one is grabbing at the child is not deescalation. If communication had been opened between Kennedy and the nurses to where protocols were explained rationally and politely, then this possibly could have been averted (giving both parties the benefit of the doubt). If either party was bull-headed, well...we saw what ended up happening.

I wonder why you felt it was relevant to gauge my response to your blocked doorway scenario? From your own report, if someone blocked your egress, you would escalate that situation to a physical level. I have been trained in de-escalation techniques, and so I would not up the ante. Somehow that seems inconsistent with your contention that professionals (nurses) should know better than that.

Realistically, in these situations, all participants have volition in escalating or de-escalating behaviours. It's not an easy job, especially when de-escalation is not the sole focus of the participants who are presumably more in control of themselves. To my knowledge, legally the first person to make physical contact is most at fault. Undoubtedly someone better versed with the law will be able to correct me if I am mistaken.

@J-Stat-I wanted to see how you would react if you felt you were under threat. I picked an office environment out of thin air.Yes, when in a professional situation, deescalation should be paramount. In the situation I envisioned, we were just two guys, not associated through business.

For the nurse, this was business, hence the onus for calming the situation was on them. For Kennedy, I can only assume it would be personal.

However, what you state in your last paragraph is correct. We are all ultimately responsible for our actions. Assumptions were made all around, instead of opening dialogue. We now see the aftermath.

I know it is a necropost, but all charges were dropped against Kennedy today and the nurses were chastized by the judge for collaborating on their stories.

OH, there was not only a camera, there is already a video posted on NBCNEWYORK.com, and it clearly shows Mr. Kennedy being a jerk. The only thing the camera show the doctor doing is getting in the way .

I think the article explains his part, he butted in and tried to impose his "knowing of the Kennedy" to sercomvent the rules of the hospital.

Doesn't make sense at all.If the father really only wanted to walk the baby around the hospital grounds, why would he get so upset that he got in a physical fight with two nurses when they tried to stop him?

kc...,why would they try to stop him? Because they think they are in charge! guess what, they are not.

jb... then WHY didn't he just sign the child out of the hospital and take it where he wished? Guess what the rules are instituted to protect the patient, even FROM a parent!

After watching the video there are more questions than answers. Most hospitals these days required someone to be buzzed out of the maternity ward to prevent infant theft. I was not there so can't say what exactly happened, but I have been in maternity wards and have seen both parents and nurses and even physicians over-react in situations, as each individual always thinks that they know what is best for the infant. It wasn't right for the nurse to be kicked (if she was) but if he felt that his newborn was threatened a father would react without thinking.

To figure out what actually did happen will take time and testimony from all parties. Usually the truth is somewhere in-between each side's story.

The important thing is that the infant wasn't hurt. Everyone else will heal.

If she was?

Come on - that was not a hollywood set... in the video, its clear the one nurse was propeled backwards at a faily high rate - landed on her butt/back. I didn't see any ropes, wires or harness pulling her either.

No matter if you want to celeb worship from afar... that is your perogative,but no nurse should have stuntman listed as an expected job condition.

There are procedures to check into a hospital and there are procedures to check out too. You figure those into expected wait time. Such a gross violation of common sense, common courtesy - there is no reasonable recognition for what transpired in the lobby. What "emergency" could he have been having to show such total disregard? It was a slow motion surreal episode of a bad day playing out - none of the players/actors were looking for a compromise.

given that the nurses were in charge of the floor - they needed to have the responsibility for making sure any transfer of custody was done in a reasonable manner. Once the violance started - there was no way they could or should have let the baby out of their sight.

yes, you can be charged with kidnap - even when its your own child. Go into any school, during classes and try to take your cild ou of class without a very good explaination... see if things don't start to escalate in a big hurry.

Recently, a father claimed his son from school - drove off. They found father and son drowned, car submurged in an irragation canal - two weeks later. Apparantly - the Dad got confused when the media,cops got involved... his solution was suicide... took the boy with him. Now, everyone wonders if that was the original or was it something that came up once he saw how big a deal it was becoming. what started out as a father/son day vacation from school ended up in tragedy.

In finding someone to blame the investigation ended up on the teaching staff for allowing the father to remove the kid from school.

Sadly too many nurses should have "stuntman" in their job description. Over the past 14 years, I can't tell you how many times I have been hit, kicked, arm twisted, spat on, cursed at by patients. Not to mention the back issues that plague sooo many healthcare workers.

I see this case in the same way I see the psych patients I sometimes had to sit with who would try and leave. They have no rights at that point, so I did what I had to until I got help to keep them in the room. Unfortunately, that meant doing what these nurses did....block the way out which usually led to being hurt.

BINGO!

The three day stay seems to be an East Coast thing.

That said, the baby should have been checked out, not taken out for a walk outside the safety corridor and then brought back. And there are reasons that babies have to have a ton of paperwork before they go outside.

Does the doctor do this for other parents, or is the Kennedy the exception?

As a nurse in a hospital birth center, I can tell you that there are very strict safety and security measures in place to prevent infant abduction. You cannot simply wander around the hospital with your newborn in your arms and come and go as you please, and if you don't understand the risks of doing that I don't know what to say. You can keep your baby in your room, or walk in the halls of the unit you're staying provided you have the bassinet along for the walk (a visual cue to staff that if someone is carrying a newborn without a bassinet, they might be abducting), but you certainly don't go wandering about the entire facility or outside. Many hospitals also have security bands on the infants ankles which sound alarms and lock down stairwells and elevators if you go too far from the maternity unit, so going wherever you want will cause a lot of problems for hospital staff. There simply can't be exceptions made in security protocol just because you are famous and you want to take your baby outside for fresh air.

Like you said, if your baby is healthy and should be able to discharge, then get your baby discharged and go home, don't give the nursing staff a hard time and expect to come and go as you please. Can't blame the nurses for doing their jobs, nurses lose their jobs and can lose their licenses for failure to adhere to facility policies and protocols. Have a problem with the security policies, don't blame the nurses, bring it upstairs to the big boys behind the desks, they have the control.

Thank you. You've explained it very well.

We really are living in a dictatorial police state when healthy babies are tagged with locator bands so that hospitals are put into lockdown if their parents go for a stroll. I would point out to you that nowhere in the article does it even hint that there was any doubt that the father holding this baby was anyone but the infants father. You cant see the problem with nurses imprisoning someone who they know is someones father for wanting to go for a walk? Show me the law that permits this incarceration? Under what authority were they detaining this man? this is so outrageous that I am speechless and if you cant see the ridiculousness of it then I don't know what to say. As Benjamin franklin said "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither" We are now trading liberty for security from the moment of Birth and its a very dangerous path.

The emergency room, friend of the family doctor was wrong in meddling over the orders of the attending physcian. The safety of the newborn is of the utmost importance. The emergency room doctor should be held accountable for his ill advised actions.

Livinginthegrey did indeed explain it well.

maybe she had a c section, they stay longer, maybe she farted and didn't feel good, and has the money to stay as long as she wants...what diffrence does it make how long they were there, they still have to follow the rules, or have the kids at home where they can make all the rules and break them all they want.

They can put in financial penalties, or have them discharged or any one of a dozen other penalties for breaking the rules, what they can't do is falsely imprison you, that is illegal and trumps any hospital policy.

72 hours. That's how long a doctor can have you detained (imprisoned) if he thinks you are a danger to yourself or others.

Kennedy was simply wrong. Protection of the baby is decidedly most important and Kennedy could have avoided all of this by getting the baby discharged. After that he could have walked him till his heart was content. Prior to that the baby is the charge (patient) of the hospital where rules are set in place for the protection of the baby (patients). To violate the protocols set by the hospital puts all new borns (patients) at risk. The protocols are the same for everyone and Kennedy has no special rules for himself, nor should he.

It's all about the protection of the newborns.

The 72 hour detention can only be invoked on a reasonable belief of a danger to yourself or others as a result of mental illness or developmental disability and they must present an immediate danger to their own safety or others. There are tightly protected safeguards against it being used without a reasonable belief of mental illness, once on a hold the person must usually be seen by a psychiatrist within 24 hours to have the order upheld. People have laid false imprisonment charges where these laws were used inappropriately and they have won.

Susan, that is exactly the point : why were they still there ? The mother had a Cesarean. We don't know what the condition of the baby was. Maybe it was underweight. There was a reason Douglas needed to try to kidnap the baby. May be a macho man will not accept the fact that his baby can't run for office from day one... He must have been on drugs. Shame on him. He brought shame to the name of his father and uncle.

You are all just making stuff up. It says right in the article that Kennedy's wife had a C-section...THAT is why they were still in the hospital. No one is trying to "pad the bottom line" by keeping the mom and baby as inpatients. If she's breastfeeding, the baby obviously needs to stay with her...and even if she's not, it's important for the two to bond as the mom recovers, so this is a totally normal hospital stay that is being repeated all over the country as we "speak."

It seems clear to me that Kennedy is the problem here. Simply, he didn't like being told what he could and couldn't do. The problem is, the BABY is these nurses' patient, not him. Their job is to keep the baby safe and healthy. The baby has NOT been discharged by his physician, which means the physician has not said he is well enough to go home.

If Kennedy wanted to take the baby home against medical advice, he had the option, but he needed to go through the correct process (signing that he understands what he's doing and it's not the hospital's fault if an adverse event occurs because of it) and not start kicking people who won't get out of the way while he runs down the stairs holding a newborn. No one was being "falsely imprisoned", and I guarantee Kennedy was given a rundown of all of these procedures every time his wife gave birth, including this time. He absolutely endangered the child, as well as assaulted the nurses who were absolutely doing the right thing.

The doctor who interfered also needs to face some sort of disciplinary action. He did not have a patient-doctor relationship with the baby and it was negligent of him to try to give the "all clear" for the baby to leave when he had NO idea what his health status was. He also knew full well that Kennedy was trying to break hospital policies, and he endorsed it.

The rules apply to everyone, boys.

The mother was likely still there because she had had a C-section delivery, which requires a longer hospitalization.It is customary, in that case to release the infant at the same time as the mother.

I have no idea whether the nurses escalated the situation with the father wanting to take the baby outside or not.At any rate he was way out of line to physically assault them.But the underlying principle is that if the father had taken the infant out of the OB unit the baby could have been exposed to something contagious outside the OB unit and then if the father brought the infant back inside the nursery the other newborns-none of whom have built up any immunity yet-could have been exposed to whatever the Kennedy baby was exposed to while he was off the unit.The standard would be to explain that to the child's father, and if he was still insistent about taking the baby out then the next step would be to call the physician and just get the baby discharged.

Bingo! fer shur! ... There obviously were some concerns, as noted - if everything were 100% by the book. The baby would have been released.

No one wants the child to not be with the mother as much as possible, nothing is better for the child or Mother than natural breast feeding as long as both are up to it, no complications. And it is also routine for additions test to delay the discharge of the child for another day or two, even if the mother is allowed to go home.

The big Question is "where was the Mother" while all this madness was going on? Was she still in Hospital, discharged ... waiting in the car?

Duhh could it be that the baby needed further hospital care? Oh I forgot like a typical Democrat Progressive Kennedy believed he knows more than anyone else about everything and that he is so smart that everyone should bow to his every whim? Did anyone check his alcohol count? That seems to be a problem with many of the Kennedy family members.

Susan the mother involved had a c-section. Maybe you've never tried to slice open your own abdomen but it's not that easy. Good luck with that though.

There also tests for readiness for discharge for the baby....two that I am familiar with is that their body temperature has to be able to be maintained "on their own" without a heated bassinet. One of my grandchildren had to stay in the hospital a few extra days for just that reason. Another is that their airway needs to be able to be maintained by the baby in a safety car seat. They do that by a trial period in the car seat in the hospital with an oxygen saturation monitor in place. Some babies tracheas are weak so that they occlude when in that position in a car seat. Then they need to stay in the hospital a little longer. So....there are reasons why a baby may be kept in the hospital. The nurse's primary job is safety of the baby and the mother.

Detective Globalove is on the case. Did you read anywhere in the article that he smelled of alcohol or seemed inebriated? No, detective.

Wahhhhhhhhhh...
Detective globalove ...lol

He supposedly twisted one nurse's arm and crotch kicked another... Hmmmmm ...normal?

Normal? No. A predictable response from some inflated ego when hearing the words "you can't do that"? Yep.

No, actually, they don't, and you have no idea how operations and MD privileges work in hospitals, do you? An MD who is not listed as an attending provider on the patient's chart cannot just come in and give orders (which is essentially what he was trying to do here - give an order that circumvents the maternity ward's security protocols). There is no security protocol in any birth center I have ever worked at that says MDs from non-related areas of the hospital who are not attending providers can come in and act in the role of security personnel or patient escort, or that they can order nursing staff with whom they have no working relationship to ignore their protocols of their unit. If they don't like the security protocols they could have asked to be discharged from the hospital. And in the future they can bring it up with hospital administration, because the nurses were simply doing their jobs, anything less and they could have been held accountable for violating security policy and reprimanded or fired.

@davidhoffman: Sooooo, you never checked, then?

Living in the grey and you know for a fact the doctor was not listed as an attending provider or on the patients chart or are you just assuming he wasnt. Lets see he has his kid at a hostpital where his friend works i would assume the opposite of you just because the doctor who works there probably already knows everything you are saying so prove what you say or really I can care less what you say about these big corportations and how they think they can control someone doing what they want with their kid. What is it, did the nurses not drug the kid up for his future cancer or fail to put the RFID in him who the hell knows what you loons do behind closed doors. And you want us to trust you with our newborns ya right you are the reason i would never have a kid in a hospital you think you own my kid with some garbage rules and regulations to keep out the supposed kidnappers the what ifs instead of the rights of the person who rightfully owns the kid. To say the nurses wouldnt know if its the father or not just goes to show you again why the hell would i trust some complete stranger to touch my child if they dont even know who the hells child it is, If you have a problem with the way big wigs run you nurses then you go to the top you are the one who has to deal with this @!$%# daily not someone who comes in once or twice or maybe three times in their lifetime.

And when was the last time you "checked," David Hoffman? Or, rather, which TV show did you check? Your statement is outdated by a few decades.

I've been a nurse for over 30 years now. Just because some doctor, from another unit, decides to give orders to a nurse, regarding a patient, who is not his, on a unit he doesn't work on, doesn't mean she's to suddenly Kow-tow to his "orders." There are hospital regulations for a reason.

The whole scenerio is ridiculous. Was the healthy newborn still in the hospital because the mom had a c-section? Was she breast-feeding the baby? There may be reasons why the baby was still there.

And as long as the baby was there, then hospital rules must be followed, for the safety of all. The parents certainly could have signed out against medical advice first. No one was keeping them prisoner.

We don't know the whole story but I believe the Dr. should be investigated by the state's medical board for unethical behavior.

No matter what, there's no justification for Mr. Kennedy to have assaulted the nurse or anyone else. Just because he's RFK's son doesn't give him the right to do whatever he pleases.

Who in their right mind takes a newborn out of the hospital "for a walk" in the cold winter air anyway?

The baby would be exposed to outside germs then brought back inside the hospital. And I agree with the other nurse. Newborns do have difficulty regulating their temperature.

Totally unacceptable behavior on Mr. Kennedy's part.

@Gamer, ER docs are not attending docs. They stop writing orders and seeing patients once the patient leaves the ER. It's fine if this family friend was up and visiting, but maternity is not his area. OB/Peds docs don't run around the hospital writing random orders for friends on other units. If a OB doc came to the ICU, and started trying to write orders, they wouldn't be taken.

If you can come up with a better solution to make sure babies aren't kidnapped or placed in unsafe situations while in the hospital, I'm sure there are vendors and hospitals who would love to hear from you.

Absolutely right Anna_Marie! Ridiculous. If that baby had a security sensor on it's ankle then the elevator would have stopped and once the security door on the floor was breached, alarms should have gone off anyway. Maybe the hospital in question needs security sensors on the babies?

This ER doctor should be seriously reprimanded. Way too full of themselves the Kennedy's and their "friends"

outrank?

Fail.

Nurses are employees of the hospital. The hospital provides a place for a doctor to direct the care of his patient. That is why the term "the doctor has privileges" at the hospital. But that doesn't mean he has privileges for just anything........there will be a list of things a particular doctor has privileges to do. I'm not sure that we even know if this doctor was even a physician at this particular hospital, let alone have privileges on the maternity ward!

DavidHoffman - you've been watching too much TV! You need to learn about real life!

It was the nurses responsibility, UNTIL the infant was discharged. That said, insurance had nothing to do with this incident, and the Kennedy's probably don't give a rip about insurance, they may well own an insurance company, so your logic is faulty. Now go to bed child.

The medical establishment has gone too far, claiming power over our families and our bodies, SCREW the medical establishment. The Kennedy's were within their rights!

I don't actually understand why a healthy baby was still in the hospital at all, nor why his OWN FATHER would be charged for taking his kid for a walk. There's more to this story than we are reading here, I am guessing.

If it was a c-section birth, it's reasonable to have the baby stay for an extra day or so (my son and I were in the hospital for 4 days following an emergency c-section). Don't know what the Kennedys' situation is, but extra recovery time for a difficult birth or a prenatal condition is always possible. However, assaulting a hospital staffer is WAY out of line, regardless of the circumstances.

No DRK there probably isn't anything more to this story than meets the eye. Modern nursing practices emphasise mindless protocol following as taking priority over all other activities. It doesn't matter whether something is illegal, like false imprisonment, or clinically dangerous, if there's a protocol that tells them to do something they generally do it to the letter. Its really quite sad, sure I understand much of it relates to protection from litigation but really what is the point of having trained professionals when all they do is brainlessly follow protocols with no consideration to context, their knowledge or common sense.

AussieRob, you really have no clue. Us "brainless" nurses who follow protocols understand why these protocols are in place, and it's for everyone's safety and for the wise use of hospital resources. Let's say for a moment that they go ahead and let Mr. Kennedy wander around the hospital with his newborn in his arms. Hospital staff are trained to the visual cue of an adult walking with a newborn who is without a bassinet in the maternity ward; this is a sign of abduction and the adult must be confronted and asked for identification. He goes wandering around and will literally have to be stopped by every hospital employee to check identification to ensure this baby does indeed belong to him. Despite being a big name, nobody knows what this guy looks like and wouldn't know if he's really the father of this baby.

Let's also say for a moment, for the sake of argument, that the Kennedy family wanted to make sure their child was protected and decided to set up a "sting", to test the security of the maternity ward. All holy hell would have broken loose if the nurses failed to follow protocol and allowed him to leave.

Security like this has been put into place because of the demand of PARENTS who fear those rare but terrifying cases of infant abduction from hospitals. It happens. At least once a month we have some weirdo come to our unit scoping out the place, asking for patients who don't exist, or boldy ask to come into the nursery so they can hold babies belonging to complete strangers. There has to be limits. And if you don't like those limits, you are free to deliver elsewhere, like at home.

I'd suggest you reread my post, I never said nurses were brainless I suggested following protocols was brainless, I actually said it was sad that trained professionals were foregoing their knowledge and common sense in favor of protocol. And yes if protocol says everyone who sees him has to check ID then let them do that, but these nurses knew this father, there was no doubt as to ID, but they attempted to detain him anyway, that is false imprisonment and is illegal, these nurses also attempted to grab a baby from his arms, I'm at a loss for words for the idiocy of that action. In the end if they felt a crime was being committed they should have stated they were performing a citizens arrest, if they did not they should have stated what he was doing was against hospital policy and stood aside, hospital policy breaches do not trump false imprisonment laws.

AussieRob, a little legal lesson for you. Definition of false imprisonment: The illegal confinement of one individual against his or her will by another individual in such a manner as to violate the confined individual's right to be ***free from restraint of movement***.

An individual must be confined to a substantial degree, with her or his freedom of movement totally restrained. ****Interfering with or obstructing an individual's freedom to go where she or he wishes does not constitute false imprisonment.*****

This was not a case of false imprisonment. he could have left at any time. . . by himself.

Furthermore, again the maternity nurses might know who he is but the rest of the hospital staff doesn't. Every hospital staff person seeing him walking around with that baby would have to stop the man and check identification. Poor use of hospital resources. Can you imagine if all parents wandered around and we had to check everyone's ID? Either we have the security in place and everyone goes by it, or nobody has security checks and everyone walks around freely and there are no controls in place. And when babies are abducted, who will be to blame? The nurses. We can't win.

Here's another legal lesson for you, false imprisonment applies to children to, the nurse had no more right to detain the infant than the father. You can dress this up all you want but legally she had two recourses, state that she thought a crime was being commited and is performing a citizens arrest and call the police, or state a hospital policy is being breached and stand aside, she has no right to detain father or child.

AussieRob, you are just being argumentative..you are wrong on all fronts...and many newborns will be safe, knowing you do not work anywhere near a hospital (and I assume this becasue you know nothing about the resaons for the rules and polices for them).Kids are taken from hospitals by parental abductors all the time, dont you read the papers, and where does it say "sacrafice the safety of a child for the rights of a father" ?He chose to have his kids here, which means he argreed to the rules, not knowing the rules is not an excuse and unless his other kids were all born in the stone age, he was very aware of the rules of hospital maternity wards today ....."citizens arrest, false inprisonment? are you kidding me !!! lol...how about "baby dies because father drops him down stairwell beacuse he wanted to act like an ASS and fight with nurses trying to protect a new born baby"...or mabey that would have trample the fathers right in some way to...Parents are not perfect, but plain and simple the hospital is responsible until the baby has been discharged and left the hospital...why couldn't the dad have just waited until he was home to go for his all important wall?? I will tell you why, because he did not want to follow the rules plain and simple.

You may be willing to abandon all your rights for the sake of fear of a rare event. Most people, including myself, however are not. I am not being argumentative and I do work in a hospital. I fully understand if a person is not known to staff them asking who that person is and possibly taking that further, there is no suggestion that was the case here. Every hospital I have worked in instructs non security staf to withdraw from any confrontation with a person they are concerned about because of a much higher risk of escalating a situation through confrontation. Everything about the way these nurses handled this situation placed this infant in more danger then if they had simply called security and stepped back.

Does it make you feel big to make unfounded personal accusations across the internet? debate the points I make if you disagree, attacking an individual you've never met is pathetic.

What is to debate? Lorise-69 has stated everything very clearly and you are just arguing with her to argue. Nothing you are saying has any merit, it would just appear to me that you think rules that are put in for peoples protection make you think that hospitals, or anywhere with rules for that matter, turns it into a police state.

I agree with AussieRob, the nurses put the baby in harms-way. If the father was not inebriated, they should have written up an incident report, had the supervisor sign it to cover their ass and let him take the child out for "fresh air."

If the father was sober, it was all a power struggle, egos against power, power against egos!

Tiredofitall14, they can have all the rules they want but they are not laws and are in no way enforceable and certainly in no way permit these overzealous nurses to assault a father and child by placing hands on them. If they felt he was a true threat then essentially every policy on health care workers managing threatening individuals recommends staff remove themselves from the situation as quickly as possible to prevent further escalation, specifically they are not to engage the person physically in any way, and call security or police as they have training in managing such situations. When individuals or organisations feel they have the right to hold someone against their will and physically restrain them on the basis not that they've broken a law but simply a facility policy that is when you have a "police state" mentality.

Flight attendants on all airlines nowadays are trained and brainwashed to enforce a police state mentality.
Nurses in hospitals are brainwashed the same way... "HOSPITAL POLICIES"
Common sense and logic are gone.

"Please don't think for yourself... here let me do it for you."

@AussieRob

Punctuation. And you are soooooo off the mark. I can't imagine in a million years you EVER worked in a hospital. Unless it was completely out of reach of patient care. Perhaps EVS? You do not have one substantial, researched, or benevolent statement made in any of your posts. You are simply trolling. At least I hope with all my might you are. No one could be this misinformed or argumentative and still function in the society of healthcare. No one is holding anyone against their will, this guy was an a$$ whether he is a Kennedy or Joe the Plumber. Nurses can't even assume a patient's name when they've worked with them for 12 hour shifts. They still have to ask their name EVERY time they do treatments or administer medications. You don't assume anything. I don't care if Clooney is walking a newborn around a unit, I am not going to assume he is the father or the kid he is holding is his. It isn't all about litigation either. It is the safety and welfare of the patient, the baby. No one else. Period.

Glob... Flight attendants are trained to protect their passengers! There are some very disturbed people who fly these days as well as rowdy drunks. I personally am GLAD that there is someone trained to help keep the doors SHUT at 30,000 feet when some passenger decides to get out and tries opening one!

As for common sense, where was it when Mr. Kennedy wanted to stroll around OUTSIDE in the dead of winter with a 2 day old? If he wished to take the chance on killing his child then the least he should have done was have the baby discharged and release the hospital from any liability for his actions.

When did I ever say they should just have assumed who he was? You must have missed this in may last post "I fully understand if a person is not known to staff them asking who that person is and possibly taking that further, there is no suggestion that was the case here. Every hospital I have worked in instructs non security staff to withdraw from any confrontation with a person they are concerned about because of a much higher risk of escalating a situation through confrontation. Everything about the way these nurses handled this situation placed this infant in more danger then if they had simply called security and stepped back."

I specifically say they should enquire who he was. Then go on to discuss how physically confronting this individual was entirely the wrong way to handle the situation if they genuinely felt he was a threat. You can belittle me if you want but the fact is that this was either way overzealous who knew who he was but chose to act in this way regardless or it was a case study in how not to handle a code purple.

OK. So, in the midst of a possible father taking his possible infant off the the unit against all standard policy and procedures, (which I am sure any rational human being is aware) the nurses, specifically trained to follow this standard of care must stop and convene a discussion? All the while, this 'father' obviously stable..............., who was seemingly begged by the staff to stay, chooses to assault a nurse with his infant in his arms. And it seems you want to blame the nurses for escalating it to this point. Kennedy is not at fault, right? So if a person is speeding on a major highway, or better yet, a construction zone, a cop pulls him over and the speeder resists and crashes, it's the cop's fault for letting it escalate, right? Hmmmm, accountability is such a lonely word.

Yes the nurses have no right to do anything but speak to this person and call a code or police, they lay a finger on him they have committed assault. He has on the face of it assaulted her in response to what he perceived was an assault, I have never said he hasn't , he now has to make a case in court about whether his actions were in reasonable defense or not, that is for a court to decide and time will tell.

Yes absolutely there are very strict policies about situations in which a police chase should be called off because of the risk of escalating and making a situation worse, and where those policies have been breached Police officers have been found guilty of misconduct and even manslaughter.

Some new information to give some further context, and certainly not a good look if her claim is she was simply following policy and adhering to her legal requirements. Cari Luciano's (the nurse knocked to the ground) husband has given an interview to the New York Daily News where he says that she came home after the incident and informed him about the event in detail including the patient's identity! A serious and grave violation of HIPAA laws and patient confidentiality.

After being kicked - you expect the wife to not mention what happened at work? that is not a typical day at work.

How about if you were in the towers on 9/11 and made it home late, you expect the wife to not talk about? that the TSA shutdown the Air port for a bomb scare... you don't talk about to your spouse - cause it might help the enemy?

She can tell him she was kicked, but informing him of the name of a patient and father is illegal under HIPAA and gross professional misconduct. No there is no similarity with a nurse giving out personal details of her patients to a family member and a private citizen talking to their spouse about a traumatic event.

Beowolf, on this one I'm gonna have to disagree. There are laws in place to protect patient privacy. She could've talked about the incident in general terms, but shouldn't have provided ANY specifics in terms of who was involved.

Since the details, persons, injuries and related information is part of public record (once the police are involved, and an arrest is made - charges filed ... its kinda already in the public domain isn't it? So far, nothing has surfaced about why the child was being kept... for further observation maybe? Nothing has surfaced about the medical side of this issue.

So far, the only thing I've read seems to be directly related to "The Incident" and the assault. Just as you might say its prejudical to show something like a video of a crook who robbed a store with a gun - it might make him look guilty.

In this case, the nurses seem to have stayed within the boundaries of HIPPA, nothing which has been released - so far - has extended beyond the public records and criminal charges. Even the stuff with the ER Dr. and why he thought it was OK to get involved - maybe a bonding opportunity with the baby? - they didn't go into that.

All we really know is there was a procedural incident, there was a physical assault (physical assault is any touching of someone who didn't consent to being touched when they legally did not have to submit or you had no right to initiate contact). the child was not released by the hospital the had a right and legal obligation to detain him until authorites came on scene to resolve the issue.

I'm not saying you are wrong ... but the evidence-as stated in the article- seem to hold them blamless for anything. HIPPA or not - when a police officer askes you for information concerning a crime you have an obligation to answer his questions to establish what transpired.

Thats my point of view. Once a crime is commited - you lose some protections, unless they are specifically protected by confidentiality laws and if pushed - you could still be forced to reveal them - under immunity laws.

It was relating to the fact that the article stated she went home that night and told her husband, in detail, about what happened. Patients/family name, etc. THAT is what's against HIPAA. Not the fact that she had to do the police report, file a statement. with that, yes she has to violate HIPAA to some extent, otherwise it'd be pointless to file charges.

None of this was on the public record at the time she told her husband, but that is largely irrelevant. The nurse has no right to notify anyone except the police and a court under oath the patients identity. Even once on the public record the information she has remains HIPAA protected and the fact we know the patients name is irrelevant, she can not release to her husband or anyone else personal details of her patient. She most certainly is in breach of HIPAA

Wow, really getting a workout today, huh?

You assume a lot. Glad I don't live around you.

Assume or just stating previous facts concerning the actions of the Kennedy's??

Sure hope you never need a Dr., nurse, or hospital care which, by the way, you almost certainly will at some time. Good luck removing that gallbladder on your own when it stops working.

Ed...you look to be a Harvard man as well.

Ed, it was not only the nurses "buisness" but her job, responsiblity and right to stop the father. The nurswas doing the right thing and the dad was not, he wanted to break a rule, a policy and a safty gurad put in place for his own child by throwing his weight around..The dad was completely in the wrong.

Lorise-I am an MD (I usually work in the OR or in an outpatient setting), so I have experience in the hospital setting (and yes I have done some time in the OB ward, but I am not an OB/Gyn).

As a physician, I have had my run-ins with nurses (and they have had run-ins with me), but I am not here to declare that all nurses are controlling harpies, etc. All that said, from what I have read so far, the nurses were WRONG!

Correct me if I am wrong: aren't all parents given wrist bands that match with the ankle band the child is given in the delivery room? I have seen both mom and dad given the bands after a C-Section on hundreds of occasions (yes...I have participated in that many C-Sections). So while the dad may be queried as to why he is walking with the child (and I don't see a problem with that), the hospital staff would have an easy time verifying the identity of the child and parent.

ANYTIME you restrict the movement of a person, forcibly (by holding them) or impeding them (holding the door shut so they can't get out, even if you are not physically touching the person) you are falsely imprisoning the person.

Was Kennedy out of bounds for kicking the nurse? On the face of it I would say yes (I say on the face because I don't know what his state of mind was; I have seen people get very belligerent when it comes to health of a loved one and he may have stopped being rational at this point and began fearing for his child's safety). However the nurses bear greater blame for the escalation of the incident. Why? They should have done everything in their power to DEESCALATE the situation. Call the charge nurse. Make up an excuse ('let us get some extra warm blankets for the baby') and while doing so, call a hospital administrator. Ask the dad if he wanted to swing by the mother's room first and see if she could dissuade him from taking the baby outside (PS-I am an American, born and raised and it disappoints me to hear people say that taking a baby out in the winter is child endangerment. Blankets. Swaddling. Coats. Come on people. We are made of heartier stock than this. We can protect our offspring from the elements. I am sure of that). There were a myriad of options available to the nurses. They did not have to play at being Tony Soprano and blocking the door (I know I am exaggerating when I say 'Tony Soprano' but the image I see in my head when I hear of the nurse blocking the dad at the door is 'You will get past me over my dead body', which to my mind is intimidation, plain and simple).

PS-Walking outside on the hospital grounds is not being discharged. Almost all post-surgical abdominal cases are encouraged to ambulate and they may do so anywhere deemed safe on the hospital grounds. An order may be needed so the patient can be located ('Is he in the cafeteria or out on the patio?'), but there is no double-secret barrier force field positioned at the hospital doors that patients cannot cross.

Dad should have said 'I'd like to take my kid for a walk' (a declaration of intent, not really asking for permission). The nurses should have said 'OK Mr. Kennedy. Just let us know where you will be in case we need to contact you. The baby's next fed will be at 2 AM' or whatever. If the nurses did not want him to leave with the child, they would definitely need to explain why not (cut through ALL THE BULL-IT IS HIS CHILD AND HE IS ALLOWED TO BOND WITH HIS CHILD. PEROID. Don't give me any of this 'If he took the kid out of the unit, every staff member will be asking him who he is'. That is your JOB, so don't complain about the rules your job has set up. Believe me, I hated being on call for 33 hours straight as a resident, but if I complained, I was told that no one forced me to take the job. The same principle applies here.

The nurses were wrong. They should learn to think outside the box instead of being so rigid. I guarantee that the administration will change the policy so that the rules for a parent BONDING with their child is easier.

Shotyme: Wow, I really feel sorry for your patients. It's okay to break protocols and policies in place for patient safety when you want to "think outside the box"?! What the heck kind of thinking is that? The baby hadn't been discharged! Not to mention a newborn is restricted to that floor, unlike other types of patients that may be able to go further, for lots of reasons (not the least of which the ease with which someone can abscond with them without anyone seeing it).

How would you feel if recovery nurses let a parent going for a walk outdoors in February with a child that you had just performed major surgery on a few hours before, without talking to you? How would you feel if another physician from another department, with no doctor-patient relationship and no privileges on that floor, gave an order to discharge one of your patients?

If Kennedy wanted to spend time bonding with his child, he could do that where the child was staying as a hospital inpatient. If he wanted to go for a walk with his doctor buddy, then he could do that. No one was telling him where he could and couldn't be...they were putting the health and safety of the baby FIRST -- unlike Kennedy, whose sense of power and control matter more to him that his son's safety. He had NO right to start kicking people because he didn't have enough common sense to understand why he couldn't just walk off with a newborn before he's been cleared to leave the hospital.

While the hospital may have policies, they ONLY apply to the employee and contractors of the hospital. Patients and their guardians may be required to comply while they are there, but may also choose to stop complying at any time they so choose. The ONLY recourse the hospital has is to ban them from the property, or if they feel that someone may be in danger, they can get a court order.

The father is the legal guardian, and may take his child out at any time or in any manner he so chooses unless there is a court order limiting his rights. As soon as the nurse touches the child against the wishes of the legal guardian the nurse has committed a crime - simple battery. The father can now take any and all reasonable measured to protect himself and his child.

He may have been a jerk, but being a jerk is not a crime. Interfering with custody IS a crime. The nurse had no right to commit battery or interference with custody.

@RedBullWife-Thanks, but my patients don't need your
empathy.

Please stop exaggerating as well. I never implied it was ok
to break ALL regulations. I am simply stating that there is no good reason I
can think of to keep the father from his child in this instance.

The child was with his father; what rule or regulation needs
to be in place to protect the baby from his dad? Is there a magic switch that
is flipped when the child is discharged where the parent was once considered a
threat to the baby’s welfare, but after the documents are signed the kid is now
magically safe?

No one is talking about a kid who had surgery going outside
in the cold (again I will admonish you about changing the direction of the
conversation); we are talking (per the story) about a healthy newborn. So I ask
again-what is the harm in that?

I will simply ask you this-what did Kennedy (or
intend to do) that would have out his child in danger? When you answer that,
then we can have a reasonable discussion. As of right now, you seem more
focused n the fact that he had the temerity to question authority and that he
is a Kennedy. Neither of those things are illegal as far as I know

Shotyme, you think don't think it's ok to break all the rules, just the ones you personally have zero understanding of and ones you don't agree with. I've said it here several times now. The one or two nurses who involved in this confrontation might have known him to be the father, but all the rest of the hospital staff did not. They would see a man walking around carrying a newborn in his arms and they would be required to stop and ask for identification. EVERY hospital employee would be required to stop the man and ask for ID. That's a poor use of hospital resources, having to go this extra mile to act as child protective services.

With a big-name family like the Kennedy's I would have been suspicious that the family could be staging a sting, a fake kidnapping attempt to test hospital security, and if those nurses would have simply "filed a report" and let him walk away, you know damn well the family would be all over the media condemning the hospital (specifically the nursing staff who let them walk away) for having such lax security that put their preciously-named baby at risk for kidnapping. And, furthermore, nurses don't know if there are custody disputes happening.

The nurses never laid a hand on this man, and he chose to freak out an use violence. The nurses were trying to de-escalate and bring him back to the mother's room so they could discuss it further. He was being a bull-headed entitled Kennedy, demanding what he wants and when he wants it. He put his hands on the nurses, kicked one, falling over with his baby and running down the stairwell like a kid trying to escape punishment because he was acting like an unstable mental health patient.

So do you propose that all parents are free to wander the entire hospital without anyone being concerned? That equates to zero security against abduction. Any person can walk up to the maternity unit, take a baby without being questioned, and leave. It's all or nothing here, and you can't be making exceptions because someone had a famous daddy. If you have a better proposal for infant security in hospitals, I would LOVE to hear it. I would also love for you to come visit my birth center and deal with, on nearly a weekly basis, the weirdos that come up to maternity taking pictures in the halls of all the exits, that come and ask to see patients that don't exist, who ask to go into the nursery to hold infants of complete strangers. If we didn't have the security that we do, we would see far more infant abductions. But since you have all the answers, please share them.

livinginthegrey-Sigh. So Kennedy would have to be asked every five feet to identify himself and the baby he is carrying. So what?! The poor hospital staff has to take time out to ask a question. Some one call the Dept of Labor (you can see how ludicrous it is to complain about the duties of your job. Either do it or quit and let someone else do the job).

Yes...he was violent AFTER THE NURSES TRIED TO PREVENT HIM FROM GOING WITH HIS CHILD! Please do not conveniently forget this fact. Was he out of line for becoming violent? Again, without more information about his state of mind, yes (what further information do I need, you may ask? Did he feel like his safety or that of his child was being threatened? Then a violent response MAY have been warranted).

We hear all this talk about 'Mama Grizzlies'. Well Papa Grizzlies can be protective as well. It is laughable to me for someone to escalate a situation to the level of becoming physical (blocking a door or putting hands on a person or their child) and then be shocked that the recipient of the aggressive act (and yes-standing in front of a door to block me from leaving is an aggressive act. The implication is that if you want to leave, then you have to get past me) would not be passive and instead become more physical.

Finally, stop putting words in my proverbial mouth. I did not say nor did I suggest that people randomly grab babies and wander around the hospital with them and that they should not be questioned. I simply ask this-what did Kennedy do that put the nurses on alert that he was a threat to his child? You answer that and then we can have a meaningful discussion instead of you creating straw man arguments for me to defend.

Shotyme, that's the question you can ask the DA. Their office spent over a month investigating this incident, and felt it was appropriate to press charges against him, not the nurses. Even despite having this family friend MD there witnessing the event.

There was no reason to respond to non-violence with violence. Blocking doors or no, he was the one to cross that line. He could have requested discharge against medical advice for his newborn. And surely he would have been offered it after the incident if he had returned peacefully to the mom's room instead of impulsively deciding to run down the stairwell with the baby in his arms.

As for my "straw man" arguments, the nurses in that moment did not know with certainty what was happening, and they were trying to buy time to sort it out. It *could* have been a parental abduction situation. It *could* have been a family sting to set up the hospital personnel. They didn't know in that moment because it happened too fast, and they were obligated to use their judgment and follow the protocols. In hindsight we know that it wasn't a parental abduction or a covert test of security, but they didn't then, in that moment.

The hospital creates these policies because we have to safe AND efficient. People bitch all day long about costs of health care. We have security for infants limited to the maternity unit so we can contain those expenses and use our resources/time as they are meant to be used. If you don't think it takes time for hospital staff to stop a parent in the hallway and ask for ID, how about if there are 10 parents wandering around? Or 25? Or 50? Is that still not going to impact staff having to take the time to do the checks? We don't need to check in OB because we know it's a secure area. Other hospital staff doesn't need to be acting as security all throughout the hospital unless a Code Pink is called.

Right, hospital staff should just suck it up and stop every single person carrying a newborn anywhere in the building because that's "our job." So now you want us to keep babies safe, because it's our job. We have no problems with our current security policies. They work well. It's the rare incidents like this one that make it a problem, and still, it's not our problem, it's Kennedy's and people that share his mindset. Much like you would suggest I quit my job if I don't like doing the duties, I would say if you don't like our hospital and our security policies, deliver your baby on your living room floor, because we aren't the ones with the problem. Our security works just fine from our perspective.

@livinginthegrey

-False imprisonment is a crime and blocking a door is an aggressive act.

-Charges are filed all the time and they may be dropped. The DA may be looking to make a name for himself. Who knows (that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing...don't worry about it though, it is not really that important)?

-You covered the straw man arguments nicely. Thank you.

-Regarding the repeated check of parent/child ID-as a young resident, I hated the fact that I had to participate in the time out prior to the surgery. I wasn't part of the surgical team, so why did I need to verify the patient's name, DOB, allergies (actually the allergies directly pertained to my job, so I felt the need to ask that). surgical site and procedure? I then realized that I have a stake in the care of the patient. So while I wasn't holding the bovie, if any harm came to the patient because of my laziness, I would bear a moral and ethical responsibility. So i now ask all the questions I can to ensure I am doing the best for my patient. And trust me...OR time is very expensive. If the OR staff can take the time, other areas of the hospital can as well. So yes. EVERYONE take the time to ask the adult if they have ID and a reason to be holdoing the child. No excuse!

And where do you do the time out? In the OR, with the OR staff, with the OR patient on the table. There is an appropriate time and place for everything. You aren't trying to perform the time out in the lobby when the patient arrives and you aren't having the receptionist do it for you. You're comparing apples to oranges here, and I would think someone with a medical degree would be able to see the fallacy in logic.

OB staff does their job of securing the maternity unit. Just like the psych staff does their security managing the locked psych units. If your proposal, to let parents walk freely about the hospital with their babies in their arms was implemented, now every single staff person in the hospital has a new function to their job. That involves retraining. That involves YOU, as a DOCTOR on your way to taking your precious lunch break, to remain constantly vigilant. If you are one of these wonderfully patient and helpful doctors who goes the extra mile to pick up garbage, wipe up blood or vomit off the floor when you come across it, that's awesome, but I can tell you right now, most physicians (and housekeepers, and dietary staff, and patient transport, and lab employees, and pharmacists, etc.) will not respond favorably to expanding their job description to provide hospital-wide security for newborns. I don't know too many MDs who are going to be happy when they are told that from now on, while walking about the hospital, on break, etc., that they are going to have to be watching for adults carrying newborns and will be expected to stop and ask them for ID. Would YOU be happy doing that? Of course you will, right? You'll do it with a smile on your face, every single time. LOL

Maternity ward security works. Its efficient. It doesn't place undue burdens on other hospital staff. It's the few rare entitled "you can't tell me what to do, freedom of teh speeeech, I have teh rights" kinds of personalities that make this into a problem when there really is none. Millions of families give birth in these facilities and have NO problem with the security policies whatsoever. That speaks volumes right there. You're just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

livinginthegrey-I guess I am willing to adapt myself to situations if they make sense and improve patient satisfaction. Believe me, I have had to change the way I do things in hospital many times (JHACO saying that I have to write out 'milligrams' instead of writing 'mg' or writing 'morphine sulfate; instead of MSO4). If I complained to someone that 'I have to write so much more now that I can't use abbreviations' when I have been shown that this improves patient safety, I think I would be rightfully labeled as whiny.

I guess you don't feel the same way.

The key phrase you said was "when it makes sense and improves patient satisfaction." Your proposal doesn't make sense at all in the grand scheme of health care services, and it is not going to improve patient satisfaction in any measurable way, because for those few self-important, entitled patients, they will likely still find things to bitch about during their stay anyway, because that's the kind of personality they have.

I suggest you take your maternity security proposal of allowing parents free-reign around the hospital with newborns in their arms to your hospital's administration and see how long it takes them to laugh you out the door. :)

@livinginthegrey- I want to retract/refine my position. I looking at your last post, I see logic in what you are saying. As I think back to residency, the hospital I trained in was so large, that looking for a patient/parent who may have absent-mindedly wandered away from the neonatal unit would be a big cause for concern. In my view, it is not a matter of all staff having to ask an adult to provide ID and to describe the relationship between the child and the adult and how annoying it might be, but wandering too far from the unit could cause patient and safety concerns.

That said (and I reiterate that a breakdown of communication between the two parties is the crux of the matter here), as I read the story, the nurses had an issue with the baby being taken from the nursery (not simply the fact that he was going outside).

From USA Today- "Kennedy and his wife, Molly, said in a statement released through a publicist that the charges were "absurd."
"It is sickening to think that our simple desire to take our son outside for fresh air has been warped into a charge of child endangerment," they said. "The nurse had no right to attempt to grab our child out of his father's arms". I read the situation as the nurse simply preventing the parent from going anywhere with the child, not simply from going outside. Grabbing at the child, restricting movement, etc are aggressive acts. I still do not see where he was attempting to endanger the child. Personally, if it were my kid, I would not want to take him outside, but I cannot tell another parent what to do.

@livinginthegrey-I insinuated that you were lazy in my earlier arguments. However, in reading your last post, and realizing that staff who do not work with neonates would not have the training to deal with a parent walking with a child and seeing how that could lead to patient safety issues, I realize you are right in that respect. So for that, I apologize to you livinginthegrey. I am sorry for my insinuation.

Apology accepted. I think when we look at a case like this it's easy to see how exceptions *could* be made, and having the gift of hindsight warps our perspective of the topic as a whole. I still stand by my assertions (based on what I've read), that the nurses acted reasonably and within their protocols. They CANNOT make assumptions that everything is hunky-dory because someone gives them their word, even if (or especially if? lol) it's a Kennedy involved. We really don't know the events leading up to this confrontation. . . there are definitely cases where mother and fathers get into physical or verbal altercations in the privacy of their room, and mad dads storm out with their babies and try to take them. It it within the realm of possibility that something like this could have been happening between the Kennedys? We know now that it wasn't, but the nurses did not know anything in that moment other than he was attempting to take the newborn off the unit to go outside. They needed to buy time to sort out the issue. It escalated further than it needed, and from my perspective it was Kennedy who escalated it. We may have to settle for agreeing to disagree on that point.

But that's neither here nor there when we're speaking to the topic of infant security as a whole and trying to create the most effective and efficient ways of protecting ALL newborns from potential environmental hazards as well as abduction risks. I always question policies that do not make sense. I feel it's part of my professional responsibility to be an active part of evaluating current processes and seeing if improvements can be made. I just feel very strongly, after having many years of experience working directly in maternity and having several different models of infant security, that the current models of maternity security work. Limiting babies to the maternity ward works, and the vast majority of parents understand why it's necessary and don't get all offended as though we are trying to usurp their rights as parents. So if something ain't broke, don't fix it, that's my firmly held opinion. We don't change entire hospital policies to accommodate one or two or even 10 dissatisfied patients when we know the policy works.

@livinginthegrey-Thank you.

Yes. I think we will have to agree to disagree on whether he should be allowed to walk with his child. I can see no rule that should prevent a parent from walking with their child. Communication is paramount. If they felt the parent may be volatile, talk with him and asses the level of volatility. If the concern is that the mother may not want the father to walk the baby, a quick call to the mom would clear that up. If parents are only allowed in the nursery between certain hours, that information should have been relayed to the dad. Nothing I have read so far leads me to believe that a dialog was opened between the dad and the nurses. And I have yet to read anything that causes me to think he would have endangered his child.

I truly feel that the nurses should have been the ones to deescalate the situation (they are the professionals in this situation). Working in the OR, I have seen what happens when two sides have an ego and are not willing to listen to the other person. If they are not trained on how to calm a situation down, they should be given the training (not that it is germane to the argument, but i say this as an anecdote. When I was a fellow, dealing with patients who may be drug seeking, it was my nature to NOT back down if a patient was being belligerent. My attendings had to impress upon me the importance of not inflaming the situation further and letting security handle the bellicose patient, both to limit my professional liability as well as for my safety).

As the story has been relayed thus far, there has been no word on how the nurses tried to diffuse the situation. I have simply heard of attempts to restrain, grabbing, etc. Those re not actions that are conducive to calming a situation. I will be checking on this story frequently. I am curious to see if it goes to trial and to see if he is convicted.

Have a great day livinginthegrey. And again, I am sorry for my insinuation.

How exactly is one to open a dialogue or de-escalate a person if that person is intent on immediately fleeing the area? If one may not block the fleeing person's path, you are basically saying that anyone who moves fast enough or with enough determination may simply grab an infant and run, with no non-security hospital staff having enough authority to try to stop them in any way.

Now who is being unreasonable?

@J-Stat-Sigh. How about having a discussion before becoming confrontational. Is that too much to ask? I think any reasonable adult will respond reasonably when given a thoughtful explanation of why a rule is as it is. I think any reasonable adult will become upset when talked down to or physically intimidated.

None of us know what transpired prior to the video. Not me Not you. You assume Kennedy grabbed his kid and ran off. I assume he told the nurses 'Hey, I'm going to take my son outside for a breath of fresh air' and was told 'No you can't because the rules say so'. If your version of events is true, he was a jerk and I would be the first to say so. If my version of events rings true, then the nurses were mini dictators who felt as if their word was fiat instead of taking the time to explain to him why he shouldn't walk with his son at this time or in a certain area. We have to wait for more details to come out.

Is THAT reasonable enough for you?

Sorry if you feel I am being confrontational.

True, we don't know what happened before everybody ended up in the corridor outside the elevator. What I don't understand is how it got that far from the nurses' station. Any conflict I've initially had with hospital policy has been resolved, with either greater understanding and assent on my part, or signing off on whatever paperwork satisfied hospital protocol. While I have occasionally met nurses who were "mini dictators", I have also met many who would gladly take the time to explain what the policies are/were, and what bit of paper I needed to sign so that everybody could be happy. Sometimes I wasn't happy with hospital policy, and in that case, the hospital administration needs to receive feedback. I simply don't understand why someone would keep trying to leave the unit with the baby when it's pretty much common knowledge that staff are instructed to prevent that from happening. I wonder what would have happened if security had been involved before the nurses had?

@J-Stat-No no...please excuse me. When I said confrontational, I meant between the nurses and Kennedy. You and I are having a pleasant conversation, although we are both firmly entrenched in our positions. No worries my friend. :)

I know this is a necroposting, but I want to be thorough. The charges against Kennedy were dropped and the nurshes admonished for their behavior by the judge.

too nut that crook got caught

Here is the actual link.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/douglas-kennedy-arrrested-baby-westchester-RFK-son-140296403.html

How is he not getting charged with assault? He launched that nurse

He sure did and he is getting charged.

I'm thinking there is a little more to this than what we're hearing but will say that hospital staff everywhere is very much at risk, much more than the public really knows.

Chefaz .... thank you!

I agree, much more to the story.

my pleasure. ☺

Looking at the footage, it looks like the nurse just fell down. Kennedy was in the stairwell with the other nurse and the one in the hall just fell down. I also watched the time of the frames and it is in 1 sec or less intervals so you should have at least seen his leg or part of it at some point in the frame(s) between the time he supposedly kicked her and the time she fell to the ground.

But none of us "internet quarterbacks" were there, so we'll just wait and see what happens.

Yes, it is a wonderful idea to take a newborn infant outside for a walk, to get some fresh air, in New York in February, without bundling up. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Mom, scroll up to 22.1 for the link.

Anyone who is familiar with the procedures regarding the security of newborns knows that hospitals have very strict security designed to protect not just their health but to prohibit the theft or kidnapping of their persons.

In the hospitals that I know well, these procedures include electronic anklets that set off very loud alarms and occasionally lock doors when taken past a certain point as well as a process wherein the parent is given a bracelet that must be matched with a bracelet on the infant before s/he can leave the Postpartum floor with the child. Thefts of newborns for money or their kidnapping for other reasons, even by unauthorized family members, are surprisingly common and serious risks. So, as far as I can see, the hospital personnel were just doing their jobs.

Two, for their safety, every hospital I know does not permit newborns to be carried off the Postpartum floor to leave the hospital unless it is secured in an approved car seat, in which it can be safely carried, including without the risk to its neck that the nurse noticed.

To me, this incident is a case either of ignorance and neglect by any father or of a sheer sense of entitlement by a father whose name is Kennedy. The Doctor should be required to apologize to the hospital staff and censured for participating in this sham.

The nurse objected, no doubt, because the hospital has procedures regarding how newborns can be removed from Postpartum floors, including by family members. You should do some research on the theft and kidnapping of newborns. It is a disgusting but not uncommon crime. The nurse was just doing her job. In addition, most hospitals do not permit newborns to be carried off the Postpartum floor unless secured in an approved car seat.